Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to Canadian confederation the British Empire pursued a policy of scripter control over the British North American colonies by the imperial metropole. However, in the decades leading up to Canadian confederation the British Empire pursued a policy of consolidation of British North America and laxer control allowing for autonomy by Canadians. By providing the historical analysis of the decades leading up to Canadian confederation we can understand why this policy shifts of the British Empire into allowing confederation. A number of radical things will occur in the decades from the American Revolution in 1776 to Canadian confederation in 1867 that will allow for this to occur. The growth of the American Republic, Internal rebellions in Canada, and of course imperial shifting of policy towards India will allow confederation. With the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763 the Seven Year War ended and France’s North American colonies, particularly Quebec, were handed over to the British. The British Empire would only enjoy complete dominance of North America until the creation of the new American Republic. For the next century despite the threat posed by the United States of America, Britain’s North American colonies remained divided and spread over the vast expanse of the Canadian North America. It was only in the 1860’s when the British Empire’s worldwide imperial goal shifted that Canadian Confederation became possible. Confederation of all colonies bordering the United States happen occur over a short period of time. Britain’s participation in the Canadian confederation process was key in preventing colonies from being annexed by the United States and facilitating confederation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".