Étienne Parent, the Demise of the Mixed Constitution, and the Rise of Liberalism of Government in French Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Between the adoption of the Act of Union in 1840 and the British North America Act in 1867, French-Canadian elites had to reconceptualize the nature and virtues of the British constitutional system. Étienne Parent, an early defender of the ‘mixed constitution’ and one of the most influential thinkers among French-Canadian reformists, turned to the civil service to give the new constitutional regime a stable foundation. His theory of the ‘sovereignty of intelligence’ borrowed French liberal ideas to build a distinct model of constitutionalism out of British constitutional institutions. Parent’s thought also exemplifies how the idea that the constitution is the principal integrative force of the polity continued to shape French-Canadian constitutional imaginary in the mid-nineteenth century. Recovering this dynamic and historical approach to constitutionalism sheds light on this distinct constitutional model, obscured by the later influence of AV Dicey and his retrospective interpretation of nineteenth-century constitutionalism. Putting the emphasis on the administration, Parent’s theory of the ‘sovereignty of intelligence’ offered a form of government liberalism which differed from the liberalism associated with parliamentary sovereignty, and republicanism and popular sovereignty. In many respects, Parent participated directly in the consolidation of the constitutional model he defended, and his thought allows us to recapture the synergy and generative tension between the cabinet and the civil service that endures in the contemporary constitutional practices of Westminster parliamentary systems.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".