MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2994976790 · doi:10.7202/1065728ar

The Crown Lands Department, the Government, and the Settlers of McNab Township, Canada West

2019· article· en· W2994976790 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michelle Vosburgh

Bibliographic record

VenueOntario History · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Settlement (finance)PoliticsPower (physics)Order (exchange)Position (finance)Ideal (ethics)Political scienceLawHistoryPublic administrationSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the 1837-38 rebellions, it was important to maintain public trust in government. At the same time people expected significant reforms and, ultimately, responsible government. The circumstances surrounding Archibald McNab and the settlers whom he had located in McNab Township in the 1830s and 1840s, highlight ways in which the transition to responsible government took form. The settlers, deceived and oppressed by McNab, became useful political tools and their plight was highly publicized by reformers. McNab came to represent the old ways of using position and power to further one’s own status and wealth while a new ideal of serving the public interest was moving to the fore. Because so many of the settlers’ problems stemmed from land distribution, the government had to handle the issue carefully. Encouraging settlement was the most important activity of the government in this period and its policies needed to apply consistently across Canada West in order to maintain trust and stability. Its handling of the difficulties in McNab was both consistent and flexible, raising no cries of special treatment.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0490.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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