Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economic historians have assumed that the call loan market in Canada was insignificant before 1900. In this paper I present a monthly series for the call loan rate recorded daily by the Montreal Gazette between 1871 and 1907, which corresponds closely with the known post‐1900 rate in 1900–07. Evidence from monthly bank returns further indicates that the magnitude of the domestic call loan market rivalled that of Canadian call loans in New York prior to 1907. The Montreal Gazette call loan series bears little relation to call loan series for New York and London, partly because the Montreal market was less centralized and less liquid. Le taux sur prêts à vue du Montreal Gazette 1871–1907. Les historiens économiques ont présumé que le marché des prêts à vue était insignifiant au Canada avant 1900. Ce mémoire présente une série mensuelle des taux sur les prêts à vue publiée quotidiennement par la Montreal Gazette entre 1871 et 1907. Ce taux suit de près les données publiées par ailleurs après 1900, et ce pour toute la période de chevauchement des deux séries. Les renseignements recueillis dans les rapports mensuels des banques montrent que la taille de ce marché canadien se compare avec ce qui se passait à New York avant 1907. La série publiée par la Montreal Gazette n'a que peu de rapport avec celles de New York et Londres en partie parce que le marché de Montréal était moins centralisé et moins liquide.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".