Bibliographic record
Abstract
Centralization, II: Beyond the Crooks Act, 1907-16 I t might be tempting to begin this chapter with some grand observation about the "march to prohibition" in Ontario since, indeed, it ends with a discussion of how provincial prohibition came to pass.But that would distort the record, suggesting that the policy choices made in the decade after J.R.L. Starr issued his report were inexorably pointing to that single end.Tey were not.Indeed, in 1907, with an administration that viewed prohibition as unworkable and a premier who would have nothing to do with it, any potential change would see little more than a variation on the system in existence.Reform of the system was more likely than prohibi tion, and suggestions about how to deal with the liquor problem that would not lead to the unpopular and remarkably illiberal solution of prohibition were also under consideration.Starr's report, Lord Grey's infuence, and examples of other variations following marketdriven, moderationist principles became subject to concerted evaluations.Tat a decade later the province would ban the sale of all liquor was not predict able, notwithstanding the hopefulness of prohibitionists.A system of incremental restriction and expanding administration was a more realistic expectation despite the premier's initial rejection of that strategy.When prohibition did come, it was under the shadow of total war and what, for some, was an existential threat to the liberal state itself. 1 *** After 1907, Starr's argument for a centralized, professional board garnered considerable attention but little traction in the province.James Whitney
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".