The Contrasting Fates of French Canadian and Indigenous Constitutionalism: British North America, 1760-1867
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the century after the fall of New France, both Indigenous peoples of Canada and French Canadians could be described as colonised peoples. Yet the treatment of each group's pre-existing laws and the ways in which each found its constitutional demands recognised (or not) varied considerably. In spite of significant rebellions in 1837-1838, French Canadians went on to achieve a high degree of autonomy within the province of Quebec in the British North America Act 1867. Meanwhile, intercultural legal arrangements with Indigenous peoples, such as the Covenant Chain, which could be termed constitutional, were gradually undermined, ignored and forgotten. This article explores the influence on these developments of changing conceptions of (English) law and of the nature of constitutions in the early to mid-nineteenth century. It argues that the decline of eighteenth-century legal pluralism and the rise of legal positivism and single-document textual constitutions played a significant role in the rise of French Canadian constitutional recognition and the corresponding decline in the perceived validity of pre-existing intercultural constitutional arrangements with Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".