MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007493396 · doi:10.1177/1032373210352373

Cost-benefit analysis in correspondence related to building the Rideau Canal

2010· article· en· W2007493396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting History · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransportation Systems and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetorical questionGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsSociologyEngineeringPolitical scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between government and the military is examined through the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) statements included in correspondence related to building the Rideau Canal. Discourse analysis is used to identify and evaluate CBA statements. CBA statements are used for rhetorical, technical and reporting purposes. Rhetorical uses of CBA predominate in the period leading up to the construction of the Rideau Canal. CBA as a tool for decision-making of a technical nature is common during the construction of the canal. CBA serves both rhetorical and technical purposes in progress reports. Patterns in the use of CBA in correspondence between government and military are also analysed and reveal a number of communication channels where communication using CBA statements between government and the military is either common or is lacking.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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