The great game ; a plea for a British imperial policy, by a British subject. : with an introduction, by a Canadian.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
lperial Senate would still be with the United Kingdom, and Colonies grasping at a little importance would ultimately find they had been allured by a shadow and had lost the substance.For England such an Imperial Constitution would be fatal, be- cause it would at no distant day break up amid execrations against her from all her children, whose hate or friendship was worth considering.The fine policy to begin with of pushing Canada ofT, shows how wise this author and his friends of the Royal Colonial Institute are.Perhaps, however, most Cana- dians will think when they read the following pages that as some people's tender mercies are cruel, the cruelty and contempt of the author of " The Great Game " might, if he could wield a sword as powerful as he evidently considers his pen, be regarded as merciful.It is a gain, however, to have such a proposal before us, for now at length somebody amongst ourselves may speak and give us a plan.We as a people are at present placed in a somewhat ludicrous light, and the light falls on our public men and on our press." We must find some common ground on which to unite, "some common aspiration to be shared, and I think * * it can " be found alone in the cultivation of that national spirit, (mean-" ing a Canadian national spirit), to which I have referred."But if we are aiming at Imperial Federation what we should do is not to " cultivate " a Canadian national spirit, but an Imperial spirit ; it is the imperial lion, not the Canadian beaver we should get astride of.And it may be said in passing that " cultivating " a national or an imperial spirit is like culti- vating love for your mother ; if the love requires culti- vation the soil is barren and the seed diseased.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.008 |
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".