Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1877, Secretary of State Hamilton Fish was moved to observe that defining a boundary was quite different from determining one. A reading of A Good and Wise Measure, written by the historian Francis M. Carroll, demonstrates just how true the secretary's words were. In this Albert B. Corey Prize-winning monograph, Carroll tells the story of the arduous decades-long effort to determine, survey, and legally settle the original boundary between Canada and the United States. That boundary was delineated by the Treaty of Paris, which formally ended the American War of Independence in 1783. In that treaty the boundary was described in terms that, Carroll assures us, posed great problems to anyone attempting to trace its course. It stretched for twenty-five hundred miles, from the St. Croix River in present-day Maine and New Brunswick to the forty-fifth parallel of latitude and up the St. Lawrence River, through the Great Lakes to the Lake of the Woods in Manitoba then on to the Mississippi River, which was described as lying to the west of the lake rather than, correctly, to its south and east. Practically all of the border's great length was in territory that was largely unexplored and only vaguely mapped. Although it is clear that treaty authors made use of John Mitchell's 1755 map of North America in their deliberations, no copy of Mitchell's or any other map showing the intended boundary accompanied the treaty. Commendably, Carroll included sixteen of his own maps to aid the reader's understanding. It is only a quibble, but the maps are presented without scales so that distances and area coverage cannot be determined without reference to an atlas or other scaled maps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.177 | 0.062 |
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".