Newfoundland and the Canadian Confederation in the 1860s (Ⅱ)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
１．はじめに ２．「ケベック決議」とニューファンドランド （１）ケベック会議への代表派遣 （２）ケベック会議後のニューファンドランド議会（ 1865年） ３．審議の先送り （１）1865年総選挙とニューファンドランド議会（1866年） （２）ニューファンドランド議会（1867年） （３）ニューファンドランド議会（1868年）【以上、『人文学科論集』第90号に掲載】 ４．「連邦編入」の可能性 【以下、本号】 （１）「合同条件」案をめぐる攻防――ニューファンドランド議会（1869年） （２）カナダ自治領との協議――「合同条件」合意 ５．「連邦編入」ならず （１）連邦派の敗北――1869年総選挙 （２）総督ヒルの介入提案 （３）「合同条件」否決――ニューファンドランド議会（1870年） ６．結び
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".