MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391455552 · doi:10.3138/chr-2022-0023

Public Support for Canals: Lower versus Upper Canada

2023· article· en· W4391455552 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter A. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic supportPolitical sciencePublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A false image dominates too many recent surveys of Canadian history: that Lower Canada opposed canals, which Upper Canada supported. This pervasive image is not borne out by an examination of the public support for canals in the two legislatures. Both supported large-scale ventures (Lachine and Welland). French Canadians also supported smaller regional canals as well as canals above Montreal. Upper Canadians were more sharply divided along regional and party lines in support for the Welland Canal than were Lower Canadians over any canal. Legislatures in both the Canadas supported canals that they saw as most beneficial for their supporters whether conceived as a region or a party.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207