Structural Material Considerations for the First Graving Dock in St. John s, Newfoundland Harbour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The graving dock in St. John's, Newfoundland is located at the south western end of the harbour at "River Head".Its placement is ideal because it is more or less dry during low tide and occupies an area with little traffic.The first graving dock was of wood construction and the original contract dates back to 1882.In 1882 the advantages of having an upgraded dry dock were known for almost forty years.The earliest reference found was in 1856, when an American entrepreneur, Cyrus Field, published a pamphlet.It showed the advantages of the location of St. John's along Atlantic shipping routes and he predicted a great future for St. John's if the dock facilities could be improved.Up to 1882 a floating dry dock was employed, but this was not sustainable as the floating dock began to deteriorate and become unsafe for lifting purposes.Also, enlarging the floating dock would be superfluous.This put pressure on government, along with economic demands, to build a permanent graving dock in St. John's.The government entered into a contract with J.E. Simpson and Sons of New York at a cost of $550,000, in 1882, for the construction of a wooden graving dock.Before work could commence, thorough research was conducted to ensure the most suitable structural material was selected for the graving dock in St. John's.The Honourable J. J. Little and St. John's Harbour Master, Commander G. Robinson, were sent to Boston, Charleston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington City to survey American dry docks for the government of Newfoundland.Little submitted his report on January 2 nd , 1883, a bill to construct the graving dock was passed on April 21, 1883, work commenced in May of 1883 and the graving dock
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.002 |
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".