MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4301867433 · doi:10.46692/9781847422903.011

The Management of the Opposition in Canada

2010· other· en· W4301867433 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)Political scienceGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

May and June 1888 While it is difficult to follow the different ways in which the Canadian government and the emigration societies dealt with the growing volume of opposition to child immigration that developed during the 1880s and 1890s, the nature of these responses becomes more apparent if the pattern is reconstructed for a limited period when the opposition was at its height, namely, during the months of May and June 1888. The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonisation, whose deliberations were discussed in chapter 9, met at the beginning of May 1888. It was inevitable that the sensational character of some of the assertions made during the hearing should be widely reported in the press. The Toronto Mail , in particular, devoted considerable space to the matter. The hostile nature of its report prompted Rye to write at length to the editor in defence of her work and in particular regarding the health of the children whom she brought to Canada. If, she argued, ‘it has taken twenty years to discover such a deplorable state of affairs, surely the matter cannot be very apparent’. She also wrote to Lowe (the Deputy Minister) at the Department of Agriculture in order to draw his attention to her letter. Did he approve? ‘Certainly’, she told him, ‘no one has been here, no one has even written me – the whole attack is from the Knights of Labour – we curse the “lazy louts”. ’ Lowe replied saying that he had seen her letter and ‘found the points to be very good. In fact I have cut the letter out as a pièce pour servir …. I quite agree with you also that the whole of this attack comes from the Knights of Labour.’ In its response The Toronto Mail maintained that Rye had misunderstood the nature of the complaint. It was not that the children in the Homes were diseased or even that they became diseased when placed out; rather their point, and that of the doctors on the select committee, was that: There are other ‘diseases’ than those which at once manifest their presence in the body….

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0580.011
Scholarly communication0.0160.002
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0110.013
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLabor Movements and Unions→French-language works237,207→