The Canadian Civil Wars of 1837–1838
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian historians have traditionally stressed that the rebellions of 1837 \nand 1838 in Upper and Lower Canada were revolts against British imperial \nauthority. Less stressed has been the fact that the rebellions were also civil \nwars and that British troops were aided by substantial numbers of loyalists \nin defeating the rebels. In recent years historians have tended to downplay \nthe importance of French-Canadian nationalism, but by 1837–8 the rebellion \nin Lower Canada was essentially a struggle between French-Canadian \nnationalists and a broadly-based coalition of loyalists in Lower Canada. \nOutside Lower Canada there was no widespread support for rebellion anywhere \nin British North America, except among a specific group of American \nimmigrants and their descendants in Upper Canada. It is a myth that the \nrebellions can be explained as a division between the older-stock inhabitants \nof the Canadas and the newer arrivals. It is also a myth that the rebels \nin the two Canadas shared the same objectives in the long run and that the \nrebellions were part of a single phenomenon. French-Canadian nationalists \nwanted their own state; most of the republicans in Upper Canada undoubtedly \nbelieved that Upper Canada would become a state in the American \nUnion. Annexation was clearly the motivation behind the Patriot Hunters in \nthe United States, who have received an increasingly favourable press from \nborderland historians, despite the fact that they were essentially filibusters \nmotivated by the belief that America had a manifest destiny to spread across \nthe North American continent. Indeed, it was the failure of the rebellions \nthat made Confederation possible in 1867.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".