MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2327096722 · doi:10.5558/tfc2014-068

Growing pains: Edward Partington and the early wood pulp industry in New Brunswick, 1890–1910

2014· article· en· W2327096722 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bill Parenteau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Fredericton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillPulp (tooth)Paper productionPulp and paper industryPulp millBusinessEconomyEconomic historyAgricultural economicsOperations managementEconomicsHistoryEngineeringArchaeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The story of the dramatic rise of pulp and paper as the most important manufacturing industry in Canada by the end of the 1920s is well known. Less well known are the difficulties of the industry in its early years of development (1890–1910). The pool of technical and mechanical knowledge in Canada to run a pulp and paper mill was shallow. In addition, markets tended to be unstable and access to sufficient quantities of capital and wood was precarious in some places. There were notable successes but also enough errors to doom a large number of enterprises. New Brunswick mills experienced all the pitfalls of pulp production during this era, none more so than the Cushing Sulphite Fibre Company, despite the fact that the main financier and the mill manager were prominent figures in the early history of the industry.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0270.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry Chronicle→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→