MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2952385114 · doi:10.14288/bcs.v0i201.189777

Fleecing the Lambs? The Founding and Early Years of the Vancouver Stock Exchange

2017· article· en· W2952385114 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geoffrey Poitras

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock exchangeEliteGenealogyStock (firearms)HistoryEconomic historyPolitical scienceEconomicsLawFinanceArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the contentious and sometimes colorful role that the Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) played in the economic development of British Columbia, the lack of scholarly attention to the history of the exchange is somewhat surprising. The most widely referenced contribution dedicated solely to the history of the VSE, Fleecing the lamb: the inside story of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, is largely devoid of references and contains numerous historical inaccuracies about the founding and early years of the exchange this paper aims to dispel. Employing an array of primary and secondary sources, this paper provides the first scholarly examination of events leading to the founding of the VSE in 1907. An explicit connection is made between the business leaders and social elite of Vancouver with the founding members of the VSE. The evolution of exchange membership is examined and a speculative bubble in entrance fees that peaked at the end of 1910 is detailed. Finally, common misperceptions about the role of the remarkable promoter, Alvo von Alvensleben, in the early years of the VSE are addressed.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0200.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→