A very fair comparison of the relative condition of farmers in New York State and the Province of Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT:" From all we could learn we found that farmers in Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties, where we visited, pay as much or more for what they have to purchase and get no more for the produce they have to sell than do farmers in the County of Leeds.We also found that they are not any more prosperous, and from all we could gather are more heavily mortgaged than farmers in the County of Leeds.We also found that well improved farms of the very best of soil, free from broken lands, and lying within from two to ten miles of the city of Ogdens- burg, as well as in other localities where we made enquiries, can be purchased much cheaper than lands of the same quality with same improvements similarly situated in the County of Leeds ; that lands have depreciated in value more in the last ten years in St. Lawrence and Jefferson Counties than similarly situated lands in the County of Leeds."During the last session of Parliament the position of the Canadian farmer as compared with his brother farmer in the United States attracted a good deal of attention, especially with respect to the articles of binder twine and coal oil-the duty on both of which articles was materially reduced by the Government.The general contention of the Opposition was, in effect, that the operation of the National Policy was to increase to the farmer the cost of those articles he was obliged to purchase, and to lessen the prices which he could obtain for the farm and other articles he pro- duced.It was further argued by Sir Richard Cartwright and other Opposition orators that the value of the farm lands had greatly declined on account of the adop- tion of a Protective policy in 1879 ', that mortgages had increased ; that the general condition of the farmer in Canada was worse than it was in the United States, and that the only remedy for such a state of things was closer trade relations with the United States, whereby the Canadian farmer would have access to their " market o2 31.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".