Manitoba and the Northwest territories as markets for Ontario and British Columbia fruit.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In view-of the fact that Ontario is increasing so rapidly in the volume of fruit which it produces annually, it becomes of the greatest importance that we should look around for new markets, and that we should take advantage of every opportunity afforded us of increasing our sales in every direction.Although we now produce large quantities of fruit, we grow but a tithe of what we could grow provided we could find sufficiently large markets for our surplus.This subject has been given me, I presume, for the reason that travelling as I do across the Dominion every year, and sometimes twice a year, I have opportunities of becoming fairly familiar with the country and its products.Extent op Country.-I shall first call your attention to the extent of this country.Manitoba extends 320 miles along the 0. P. R, and has its two additional southern lines running parallel ; it has also a line running north in the Dauphin Lake territory.A very important point in connection with the demand in any country for fruit is the number of villages, towns and cities to be supplied.Winnipeg now has a population of 40,000, Brandon 6,000, Portage la Prairie 4,500, and besides these larger towns there are many small places with a population varying from 200 to 1,000 or more in each.In addition there is a large population of farmers scattered through the country, and most of them, owing to the good crops which have be6n grown there for some years past, are very well to do, and as far as I know the people there are exceed- ingly fond of fruit and willing to pay almost any reasonable price for a good article.The
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.010 |
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".