Letter of the Montreal harbour commissioners to the Hon. Thomas J.J. Loranger, on the proposed improvements in the harbour of Montreal.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
184*7, when, for reasons that it is unnecessary now to mention, the work was abandoned.In 1850, the Harbour Commissioners, impressed with the importance of these improvements, and impressed also with a full sense of the difficulties to be overcome in connexion with them, asked the Government for power to carry on these improvements.This power was granted, and the necessary legislative provisions made.In two years the Channel of Lake St. Peter was deep- ened to an extent of two feet more than in the old channel.In three years more it was further deepened, so as to give five feet more water than in the old channel ; and the Commission- ers expect this summer to prove that its capacity is increased to seven feet in depth over the old channel.The magnitude of the work will be seen, when it is considered that the deepening extends over a distance of eighty miles, and dredging has actually been done over twenty-four miles, the width of the channel dredged being nowhere less than 300 feet, and that about 4,250,000 cubic yards of excavation have been removed from the bed of the Lake and River, and carried off and dropped at distances averaging more than a mile.These results are adverted to as the best proof of the correct- ness of the views entertained by the Commissioners, of the neces- sity and propriety of improvements being made in the Harbour of Montreal, on a scale corresponding with the magnitude and necessities of the navigation below the city, and with the resources of the great West.Every year's experience shews more conclusively that Harbour improvements on such a scale are necessary, and that without them, the expenditure in the channel below will be almost wholly useless.Impressed with these convictions, the Commissioners, in December 1851, authorized Messrs. Gzowski & KeeJer, Engineers, to survey and report upon the best means of providing such improvements, and especially to ascertain whether it was practicable to connect the Lachine Canal with Hochelaga Bay.Thes3 Engineers reported against the latter project, and suggested, as a better means of giving increased facilities, sundry improvements, including the enclosing of that part of the St. Lawrence from the entrance of the Lachine Canal to Point St. Charles.This scheme of docks at Point St. Charles was approved by the then Harbour Commissioners (Messrs.Try, Marchand and Young), but was then, as now, opposed by a large number of the citizens in the eastern section of the city.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.011 |
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".