MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6986904795

Report of Select committee on Georgian Bay and Lake Ontario ship canal.

2014· article· en· W6986904795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreatnessGeorgianBaySelect committeeGovernment (linguistics)Public workIndex (typography)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lake Simcoe, and between Lake Simcoe and Lake Huron, with a view to the construction of a Ship Canal, should be immediately proceeded with, and that the various towns and counties interested in the work, be called upon to subscribe sufficient funds for the expense of the survey." The Committee appointed by the Convention also instructed me : -"To complete the survey of a route for the Canal from Toronto, via Lake Simcoe, to the Geor- gian Bay on Lake Huron, and to report to this Committee, with a topographical descrip- tion of the country, levels, heights, sections and approximate estimates for the construction of a Canal capable of passing vessels of one thousand tons burthen ; a profile of the line to be furnished with the Report." The survey was continued during the au f umn of 1855 and the following winter, but was cot finally completed until the autumn of 1*57, during; which period 166 miles were surveyed and levelled; 100 miles in addition were explored and partially surveyed, in order to procure sufficient data to carry out the instructions of the Committee, and to ascertain the most practicable route.The maps and profiles of four routes were lithographed and published with the reports, copies of which were laid before Parliament during the Session of 1858.2. Was any other gentleman associated with you as Consulting Engineer, or other* wise ?Ans.It was arranged by the Committee that one of the most eminent Engineers residing in the Western States should inspect the various proposed routes, and act as Consulting Engineer during the progress of the survey.In the autumn of 1856, when the surveys were sufficiently advanced, Colonel Mason personally inspected the proposed termini on Lakes Ontario and Huron, and also the lines of the various routes, particularly those portions in which the deepest cuttings were situated, and after a full and careful examination, recorded his opinion, as Consulting Engineer, in his report to the Committee, copies of which report were presented to each member of Parliament in 1858.I may mention here, that Colonel Mason has been engaged for several years past in the construction of railroads and other public works in the Western States, including the Illinois Central Railroad, over 800 miles in length, of which work he was the Chief Engineer, afterwards Superintendent, and is now the Commissioner in the Land Department of that railroad. State to the Committee the conclusions you have arrived at from your survey ; andif, in your opinion, practicable, the grounds upon which that opinion is founded ?Ans.The duty that was assigned to me by the Committee, in connection with the project, was, as stated in reply to the Question No. l,to report the levels, heights, sections, and approximate estimates lor the construction of a canal capable of passing vessels of one thousand tons burden.The Report comprised -1st, Terminal harbour accommjdatioo ; 2nd, Water supply to the Canal ; 3rd, Cost of construction ; 4th to 7th, Comparisons and conclusion.Terminal Harbours.-Inaccordance with the instructions of the Committee, Toronto harbour was made the starting point from Lake Ontario.The survey was commenced im- mediately west of the Old Fort, and the ground between this pjint and Lambton, on the River Humber, was accurately measured, and levelled along the banks of the river, and a branch of the Don, which crosses Yonge Street immediately north of the city, continuing along the base of the Davenport Hill until it joined the western line.The intention of surveying and levelling these lines was to ascertain the approximate elevation of the ground above the level of the Humber River, and otherwise determiue the feasibility of constructing both those branches, not only as termini, but also as an available water power, the future advantages of which would be incalculable to the prosperity of the city for manufacturing and ordinary mechanical purposes.The cost of constructing those branches has not been estimated, and, though practicable and extremely desirable, as far as the local interests of the city of Toronto are concerned, lor the reasons stated in the Report, a copy of which is herewith submitted, the Hurber Ray, about three miles west of the city of Toronto, was recommended as the southern terminal entrance, and Nottawasaga Bay, on Lake Kuron, was considered as offering the greatest advantages for a northern terminal entrance, both harbours being easy of access, commodious and safe, in which opinion I was fuily sustained by Colonel Mason, the Consulting Engineer, who personally inspected the termini.Water Supply.-According to the calculations in the Report, the supply afforded by 1 299,

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1200.038

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 head0.170
Teacher spread0.164 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→