MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007800539 · doi:10.7202/010324ar

The Road to Terrace Bank: Land Capitalization, Public Space, and the Redpath Family Home, 1837-1861

2005· article· en· W2007800539 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Roderick Macleod

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityMcCord Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsEstateCapitalizationMiddle classCensusReal estateSubdivisionGeographySociologyHistoryEconomyArchaeologyPolitical scienceLawDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efforts of nineteenth-century Montreal land developer John Redpath to subdivide his country estate into residential lots for the city's rising middle class were marked by a shrewd sense of marketing and a keen understanding of the political climate – but they were also strongly determined by the Redpath family's need for status and comfort. Both qualities were provided by Terrace Bank, the house at the centre of the estate, and both would only increase with the creation of a middle-class suburb around it on the slopes of Mount Royal. As a result, the Redpath family home, and the additional homes built nearby for members of the extended Redpath family, influenced all stages of the planning and subdivision process, which met with great success over the course of the 1840s. In its use of personal correspondence, notarial documents, plans, the census, and cemetery records, this paper brings together elements of city planning, political and social history, and family history in order to provide a nuanced picture of how the nineteenth-century built environment was shaped and how we should read pubic space.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207