A history of the militia and defences of British Columbia, 1871-1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis deals with the development of the militia of British Columbia during the period 1871-1914 and takes into account the various economic, political, and social factors within British Columbia which affected its growth This includes an examination of the causes, both internal and external, which induced certain individuals or groups of people in the province to agitate for the establishment of militia units, and the Dominion policy towards this agitation. In this latter respect it takes into account the strength and weaknesses of the militia system both in the Dominion as a whole and within the province of British Columbia. It deals briefly with Imperial defence policy in general, and Canadian-Imperial relations concerning the defence of British Columbia, in particular Esquimalt. The various British proposals for the joint defence of the naval station, the Dominion policy concerning such proposals and the negotiations which led to joint defence agreements are considered. The author concludes that policy concerning the defence of British Columbia originated not with the Dominion Government, but with the Imperial authorities. Some examination is made of the effect of a permanent regular garrison upon a volunteer militia in the way of instruction, example, etc., and of Canadian policy towards the establishment of a permanent garrison at Esquimalt. The historical significance of the work lies in the fact that, with the exception of Mr. R.H. Roy’s article, The Early Militia and Defence of British Columbia, 1871- 1885, there has been no examination of the early military history of this province. Canadian military history, including that of the various provinces, has as yet been but slightly examined by historians. It offers a wide field for research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".