MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884108218

The Development of Universal Water Supply in Montreal, Mid-19th Century

2004· article· en· W2884108218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dany Fougères

Bibliographic record

VenueFlux · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater supplyLegislationObligationUniversal servicePopulationBusinessSolidarityService (business)Water industryPublic interestFinanceLawEngineeringPolitical scienceEnvironmental engineeringMarketingPoliticsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1863, all Montrealers, rich and poor alike, have tap water at home. This paper relates the history of the development of the universal service of water supply in Montreal. First in the hands of a private company, water supply was taken over by the municipality in 1843-1845. But despite public ownership, the provision of the service remains based on commercial principles, and this hampers the expansion of the system considerably. In fact, due to this (legal) obligation and to the technological risk associated with water supply at the time, the change in ownership did not change anything as regards the water system’s development. In 1851, however, new legislation entitles the municipality of Montreal to compel each Montrealer to use the municipal water supply service. From then on, water supply is subject to what can be termed a public provision regime. Admittedly, this regime based on compulsory use was only established once the general interest of universal water supply had been acknowledged, but it also allows the set up of a new financing “scheme” for water supply that municipal leaders had been longing to implement for a certain time. The technical and financial interest of the service provider thus meets the general interest of the population of Montreal in this process that leads to the universalisation of water supply — an important (although admittedly forced) form of solidarity among the city’s population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.187
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFluxSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207