Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Answer to Doyle's Report Andrew Doyle's report was sent to the Governor-General of Canada with a request that the Canadian government consider it. As its House of Commons’ Select Committee on Immigration and Colonisation was sitting at the time, the matter was referred to them. When John Lowe, the Deputy Minister in the Department of Agriculture, appeared before the Committee he was asked how Doyle's allegations should be met. His view was that a general statement about the condition of the children would be insufficient. What was needed, he believed, was ‘a detailed report based upon a full inspection’. It was agreed that an enquiry should be conducted in order to collect information in much the same way that Doyle had done. This would enable his conclusions to be checked. Nevertheless, the commencement of the work waited on the outcome of discussions about whether it should be carried out by the Dominion or by the provincial governments. Without waiting for the enquiry to be started Charles Pelletier, the Minister of Agriculture, told the Privy Council that the ‘testimony which has been adduced from different parts of the Dominion … is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the work … has been generally beneficial and particularly to the children themselves’. In justification of this view he referred to what Mr Justice Dunkin (the former Minister of Agriculture and supporter of Louisa Birt's work) had told the Select Committee. This was that: … covert cruelty to, or ill-treatment of children or young people to any extent, merely cannot be … Canadian social habits are such as to make it morally certain, that some neighbour or other, if not the whole neighbourhood will protect any child from wrong. Despite such a confident assertion five of the Dominion's immigration agents were commissioned to undertake the recommended enquiry. Parr provides a disturbing account of how this was carried out. Among other things ‘the Homes were informed in advance of the inspector's approach’ and ‘representatives of the agencies were allowed to substitute their own reports for submission by government inspectors’. It is not surprising therefore that the final report of the inspections concluded that, with a few exceptions, the children were well and comfortably settled and that the work of Rye and Macpherson was to be applauded.
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 | 0.028 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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".