Ces constitutions qui nous ont façonnés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voici une anthologie redonnant vie aux interprétations que des historiens, des juristes et des politologues ont données au fil du temps à propos des constitutions canadiennes qui ont précédé celle de 1867 : la Proclamation royale britannique de 1763, rendue publique la même année que le traité de Paris qui cédait le Canada à la Grande-Bretagne, l’Acte de Québec de 1774, l’Acte constitutionnel de 1791 et l’Acte d’Union de 1840. Dans un pays où les historiens francophones et anglophones ont eu tendance à beaucoup s’ignorer, nous avons voulu rassembler dans un même ouvrage des textes des uns et des autres qui seraient assez représentatifs de la production historiographique. Nous avons pensé que les lecteurs apprécieraient une telle approche contrastée, aussi bien sur la forme que sur le fond. Dans un deuxième temps, pour faire contrepoids à une époque où les médias sociaux et les blogues favorisent l’instantané et l’extrême contemporain, nous avons souhaité privilégier les regards qui appartiennent à nos historiens d’hier. This book gives us pause for thought on many important aspects of pre-confederation history. It allows the reader to question the version of history that they may have learned—which may have been too biased—by exposing them to other perspectives. The reader’s understanding of Canadian history can only be enhanced. Let us hope that other researchers will follow suit and will expand this exercise to our three founding peoples. - Marc-André Roy, Law Clerk for Justice Thomas A. Cromwell at the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadian Parliamentary Review
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".