Report of Walter Shanly on the rival routes between Maskinonge and Hochelaga.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
work is almost wholly suspended, pending-the reconsidera- tion which the advocates of the Bout-de-1'Ilc route have been urging* of its claims as "the best line."The "season" for railway construction is so short hero in Quebec that the delay arising out of this rivalry of routes is to be regretted, threatening, as it does, the loss of a large part of the summer.I therefore addressed my earliest investigations to sifting, and, I trust, deciding, the respective claims of the two lines, so as to allow of the embargo being removed and work resumed as soon as possible, and I now have the honour to lay before you the result of my enquiries and the conclusions arrived at.The governing work on .bothroutes is the bridging of Ottawa waters.On the Bout-de-l'Ile or original "shore" line the main river is crossed at a point a short distance below the confluence of its two arms known, the southerly as "Itiviere-des-Prairies" ; the northerly one as "Kiviere-des- Mille-Iles."The Terrebonne line would bridge the last-named of these arms at Terrebonne Village.Thence to Hochelaora two lines have been surveyed ; one crossing Iiiviere-des- Prairies about six miles above Bout-de-l'Ile ; the other at St. Vincent de Paul, some 3i miles still higher up the stream.From the description of the relative positions of the several proposed crossings here attempted to be given it may be gathered that the bridge at Bout-de-l'Ile spanning, as it would, the main Ottawa after the waters temporarily divided by He Jesus have re-united, would have to 'take' the whole volume of the great river, while on the Terre- bonne line there would be two bridges to perform the same office.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.009 |
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".