Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explains why Britain restored French civil law to Quebec and Illinois while administering English law in other former French and Spanish colonies. It explains this divergence as the product of party politics. For most of Britain’s new acquisitions, there was a broad consensus in favor of anglicization. As a result, Britain introduced English law to Senegambia, the Floridas, and the West Indies with little debate. But when it came to Illinois and Quebec, politicians disagreed about what kind of colonies they wanted. Accordingly, they disagreed about introducing English law. “Paternalist” politicians emphasized the need to keep Quebec and Illinois dependent on Britain, and they thought legal pluralism would advance that goal by encouraging obedience, isolating Canada from common-law jurisdictions, and slowing economic growth. In contrast, “moderate” and “populist” politicians wanted to transplant English law to Quebec and Illinois in order to create an integrated empire in which all subjects enjoyed the same political status and economic opportunities. The Quebec Act of 1774 marked the triumph of paternalists’ vision of authoritarian empire over moderate and populist alternatives.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".