Northwestern Ontario gold mining, 1880-1902 : the gold boom that didn't pan out / by Patrick R. Chapin. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1878, gold was discovered south of Rat Portage on an island in the Lake of the Woods. After \na brief flurry of development, excitement waned and Rainy River District mining progressed \nslowly and fitfully for more than a decade. Then, between 1896 and 1902, thousands of \nlocations were leased or patented and hundreds of mining companies were formed. There is \nevery indication that something really big was happening in Northwestern Ontario at the end of \nthe last century. However, with total production amounting to less than $1.5 million, there is also \nevery indication that nothing big should have been happening. \nThis study investigates the factors that affected the development of this unusually "unproductive" \ngold boom. These include geography, geology, government policies, and "patterns of \ndevelopment." The research included with this thesis provides details for more than two hundred \nand thirty different "mines," two hundred companies, and more than a thousand incorporators and \nmine managers. Numerous photographs, tables, and graphs are also included.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 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".