Bibliographic record
Abstract
TO THE EDITOR OF THE “DAILY NEWS.” S ir ,—No doubt you are right in saying that The Times has put an exaggerated construction on the act of the Canadian Legislature in throwing out the Militia Bill. No doubt those who voted against the Bill intended to condemn the particular measure and beat the Government, not to renounce the duty of self-defence. Still, this event proves that the Canadians are in no hurry to arm. It proves that they do not respond to the desire of certain classes in this country who wish to take up an attitude of hostility towards the United States. It proves, I venture to think, that Canadian enthusiasm, however strong its manifestations may have been, would be but a frail support to lean upon in case of an American war. England is an European aristocracy, Canada is an American democracy; it is vain to hope that they will be one in love and hatred, and always act perfectly together. The Times rates the Canadians as if they were fractious and ignorant children. But the truth is, they see through fictions, and act on the real facts of the case. As a nation they are in no danger. As a dependency, they have a right to be protected by the country on which they are dependent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.009 |
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".