A Lost Cause Renewed: Quebec, the Civil War, and Canadian Confederation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discussion surrounding Canadian Confederation often centers around whether the Dominion of Canada was built on an act or a pact. There are valid points to be made for each argument, but it just may be that both are incomplete. The act or pact debate often fails to fully consider the unique experience of French Canadians in the years leading up to Confederation in 1867, which means that a third argument has largely been overlooked. For French Canadians, the years leading up to the passage of the British North America Act of 1867 saw a renewal of the Conquest and revival of national myth. Throughout the early 1860s, the American Civil War reminded them of their past struggles against the British. They remembered how their farms and villages burned as the British captured Quebec in 1759, and as they watched their French Louisianan brethren succumb to the Union Army and Americanization, they remembered how they had been abandoned by France a century earlier. By 1867 French Canadians felt they were alone on a continent full of anglophones and Protestants who were committed to assimilating them and extinguishing the last light of true Catholicism in North America. Rather than share the fate of Louisiana’s French, they sought a ceasefire. They desired a means to prolong their struggle for cultural survival, and Confederation offered this. By building on established historiography and examining contemporary newspaper sources, this article reveals that for French Canadians, Confederation represented an armistice more than an act or pact.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".