MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010166013 · doi:10.1177/0096144207304069

Enhancing Status Through Incorporation

2007· article· en· W2010166013 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. M. Stott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban History · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnexationAgrarian societyGeographyGovernment (linguistics)PopulationSocioeconomicsRural areaRural populationEconomic growthEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceSociologyArchaeologyDemographyAgricultureEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1853 and 1881, six suburban communities in the province of Ontario opted for municipal status. Incorporation permitted these communities to separate from the rural townships of which they were a part. By and large these rural townships, dominated by an almost exclusively agrarian population, tended to ignore the needs and wants of the more urban population within their borders. While these suburban communities were generally neglected by their rural neighbors, they were increasingly viewed by the cities they neighbored as targets for annexation. There was a general sense in Ontario during the 1880s that the amalgamation of suburb and city was inevitable. However, there was a prevailing sense that there was ultimately an ideal time for this occurrence and that until that time suburban government would ensure that the suburbs were able to develop as their ratepayers and councils saw fit.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207