A letter from a member of the Board of trade, on the subject of the Quebec harbour commission.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
improvements, the subject should at once be fully publicly discuss- ed and ventilated.This is, it seems to me, a duty w T hich we owe both to the Commissioners themselves and to our interest in the trade and prosperity of the port.Now there is, I conceive, a very great doubt whether the plan which the Harbour Commissioners propose is the best, considering the circumstances, which they could adopt, and I can only attri- bute the fact that, as yet no decided public protest has been made against it, by some one far better able to grapple with the question than myself, to the conjecture that those of our citizens, who should have the matter most at heart, are really so ashamed of the miserable condition of the harbour accommodation that they are unwilling to dwell upon it publicly, and feeling, as we all must, the utmost confidence in the integrity and sincerity of the Commissioners, are content to leave to them the extremely arduous and critical duty of improving matters.Now, as the public weal should be a matter of the utmost possible consideration to every good citizen, and for which he is, to a certain extent, responsible, there is at least something rather cowardly in this leaving the entire responsibility to others.If, in the administration of public bodies, any one thinks that the real interest or welfare of his fellow citizens has been overlooked, it is not only his privilege, but, I would suggest, his duty, to represent his views, and it is in this spirit that I propose, in this letter, to consider
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.021 |
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".