MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251958797 · doi:10.4324/9780203044810-35

MONTREAL AND THE ST LAWRENCE

2013· book-chapter· en· W4251958797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C ONTROL OF THE city of Montreal was without doubt a decisive point on the road to success in any campaign in the Canadas. It dominated the St Lawrence, and controlled the access both to the Great Lakes, and to Quebec and the maritime provinces. Through the city passed large quantities of supplies for the allied army in the Canadas, supplies not just from Europe, but in large measure from New England as well. No wonder that the city had been a priority target captured in the campaigns of 1760 and 1775. Prevost clearly understood Montreal&s;s importance, as his defensive plan showed by the placing of the military main effort in Lower Canada — if necessary at the cost of abandoning the Upper province.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2310.064

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207