Narrative of the dispute between the Bishop of Ontario and the congregation of St. George's, Kingston, relative to the appointment of Dr. Lauder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before entering on the above narrative, in which it is intended to let the opposing parties speak for themselves as much as possible, it will be necessary to state a few matters of fact as to date and circum- stances, which are briefly as follows.Early in October, 1862, the late Rector, Dr. Stuart, died, and the right of presentation vested in the Synod of Ontario, which was summoned to meet at Ottawa in the beginning of November.For various reasons, it was supposed the Synod would present to this Rectory forthwith, whatever course it might see fit to pursue on the general question of patronage, and, as the city of Kingston was well represented in that body, no great anxiety was felt as to the result.But, as is now well known, the Synod finally determined, after a long and warm debate, on vesting the patronage entirely in the Bishop, the sanction of the lay majority being obtained, it is said, by the Bishop's promising not to use this power to make an appointment which would be distasteful to a congregation ; or, as he subsequently qualified it, that " he would not knowingly appoint a Rector who was decidedly disliked by the people."It is worthy of note that all the parishes in and about Kingston voted against this measure.Shortly afterwards (November 8th), the Synod broke up without any intimation whatever being given as to the person on whom the Rectory would be bestowed ', but as the Kingston Delegates had stated that the Bishop had promised to make no appointment likely to be distasteful to a congregation, and as it was universally supposed that his Lordship was well aware of Dr. Lauder's extreme unpopularity in that locality, no action was taken in the matter till it became known (on Monday, the 17th November) that the Bishop, who had only arrived in Kingston the Saturday previous, had appointed Dr. Lauder Rector of Kingston.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".