Introduction to the First Edition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction to the First EditionA selection is both better and worse than the original, better because it may pick out salient points otherwise unobserved, worse because it is a distortion.It is idle to pretend that the 1032 pages of the Confederation Debates can be cut to one-twelfth without serious loss of range and coherence.This selection is rather an introduction to the Debates than a substitute for them.(The full debates are at present available in reprint from the Queen's Printer, Ottawa.)The selection has been made on the basis of intrinsic merit; I have preferred force, relevance, shrewdness, and wit.Thus no apology is needed for giving George Brown and Christopher Dunkin the largest amount of space, with John A. Macdonald and A. A. Dorion next.Although I should like to have included more from minor figures in the debate, I have tried to include all major points of view.Selections are grouped under the Legislative Council and the Assembly respectively; otherwise they follow the same order as the original Debates.The Debates are almost devoid of paragraphing, and where it seemed clearly to be required I have inserted paragraphs.Occasionally I have indulged a wish to give something of the spirit of the Assembly, I hope at not too great a cost.The Debates have been collated with contemporary newspaper reports, the best of which were in the Quebec Morning Chronicle.While the official Debates were nearly always more comprehensive, in a few instances the Quebec Morning Chronicle was, and when it was, I have used it.Of course the newspapers reported the session as a whole, not just the Confederation debate.These reports I have used in the following attempt to suggest the setting and character of the Confederation debate as well as the immediate circumstances of Confederation.* I should like to thank the Canada Council for its assistance toward the research for the Introduction to this selection from the Confederation Debates.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.623 | 0.502 |
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".