Review of "Reports on the geological relations, chemical analysis, and microscopic examination of the coal of the Albert Coal Mining Company, situated in Hillsboro', Albert County, New Brunswick." as written and compiled by Charles T. Jackson, M.D., of Boston.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
See Patent Office Reports for 1850.5 they are pending, he becomes intimate with the speculators and holders of the licence, and announces that it is Coal !To the man of science the material is asphaltum ; to the hungry schemist it is changed first into Asphaltic Coal, and then intoCoalitself.The truth and correctness of Dr. Jackson's present statements are denied by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, tlie Polytechnic Institution of London, the late lUchard C. Taylor, Dr. Ure, and many more of the most eminent scientific men of the age.The decision of those public bodies, and a number of certificates from distinguished individuals, will appear at the close of this Review.We therefore turn to Dr. Jackson's Reports in the spirit of candid examination, to inquire how far he has supplied any reason for his extraordinary vacillancy ; but no motive can be found for his self- condemning paper, except one, which will be as well understood as if it had been expressed.After giving a full account of his exami- nations, our author states that his subject " has embarrassed men highly distinguished in the ranks of science," who, under " erroneous impressions," have attributed to **hisco<2Z" properties which it does not possess, but which belong to coal-tar, fitch, and asphaltum.Such men therefore, according to his statements, cannot distinguish between coal, coal-tar, pitch, and asphaltum; this kind of discernment being only possessed by himself, or other persons having an interest in the mine of Hillsboro'.Employing for the moment his own words, taken from the pub- lished declarations and analysis of Dr. Jackson himself, and the united testimony of many distinguished persons, " I shall be able to prove, to the satisfaction of all scientific men, that the Albert Asphal- tum is in true veins, included in asphaltic shales ; and from the absence of the fossils that accompany coal, and the presence of those that belong to other formations, the veins are not in a coal field, and are of more recent origin than the rocks that embrace them." I shall next show conclusively," and that by Dr. Jackson's own analysis, *' that the substance in question is really" Asphaltum, of an unusually "beautiful variety ;" (his own words again) and that ** it cannot be confounded with Coal, and will not serve for the uses to which that substance is applied ;" so that neither in a scientific or practical point of view is it any variety of Coal.Dr. Jackson states, (page 4) that he also learned, by his own examination, that no such substance as soft asphaltum or naptha is found in the Albert coal, or anywhere near it ; and then quotes a private letter from Dr. Gesner, which he endeavors to make it appear was written to mislead him.The letter of John Edgett, Esq.,* contained in this Review, will satisfy the reader that Dr. Jackson's assertions and suspicions are unfounded.At the fourth page of the Reports, Dr. Jackson relates, that *' some time after his analysis had been reported, in the spring of 1850," (at which time he called the article " a beautiful variety of * See Anuf' ^is,.' It softens and melts when exposed to heat in close vessels.When inflamed
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.015 |
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".