MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560305926 · doi:10.14288/bcs.v0i167.1064

An agent of change: William Drewry and land surveying in British Columbia, 1887-1929

2010· article· en· W1560305926 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Darby James Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoomMonopolizationDominance (genetics)Settlement (finance)Government (linguistics)Property rightsArchaeologyGeographyEconomic historyPolitical sciencePublic administrationEconomyLawHistoryBusinessEngineeringFinanceEconomicsMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1887, following the completion of the CPR to the Pacific, William Stewart Drewry took part in the Topographical Survey of Canada's first experiment with photographic surveying, which he applied to the Rocky Mountain Railway Belt. He then surveyed the rich mining districts of BC during the Kootenay hardrock mining boom (1893-1909). In 1909, he became BC's first and only Chief Water Commissioner and, in 1911, he returned to surveying as BC's Inspector of Surveys. From 1913 until his retirement in 1929, he surveyed for government and in private practice. Throughout his career, Drewry operated between two land systems: first, a system based on customary rights and local obligations; and, second, a system based on private property and market exchange. Drewry implemented the latter capitalist system, attempting to empower the settlement society, which had the effect of ensuring corporate dominance and, to Drewry's dismay, monopolization of the BC landscape.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0330.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207