MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7051272263

The Ontario boundaries; a conspiracy to despell the province of half its territory.

2014· article· en· W7051272263 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHouse of CommonsGovernment (linguistics)Subject (documents)Select committeeAdvice (programming)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the Colonial Secretary's invitation, the Government sent Hon.Chief Justice Draper as a special agent to represent Canadian interests before the House of Commons Committee.He was examined before the Committee, and gave evidence against the claims of the Company.Afterwards Justice Draper reported to the Canadian Government, and gave as his opinion that Canada had a clear right r under the Act of 1774 and the proclamation of 1791, to the whole country as far west as the line of the Mississippi, and to a considerable distance north of the water-shed ; and he recommended that the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be obtained upon the merits of the dispute. AN ABORTIVE MOVE.In August, 1858, a joint address of both Houses was forwarded to the Queen, in which it was stated that, in the opinion of Parliament, Canada had a right to claim, as forming part of her territory, a consider- able portion of the country then held by the Hudson's Bay Company, and that a settlement of the boundary line was immediately required.The law officers of the Crown were consulted on the subject by the Colonial Secretary during the previous year, and they expressed the opinion that, while a decision of [the Judicial Committee of the Privy the course towards another which the Government of Canada has ONTARIO AND THI DISPUTED TERRITORY Ontario tinder the award 107,000 square miles, without the disputed territory 100,000 square miles, Manitoba as enlarged by pari of the disputed terrilory 150,000 squaro miles, Manitoba without any of the disputed territory --115,000 square miles, ( i" ebec • 210.000 squa.Repudiation of the award deprives Ontario of the re- gion north of the height of land, which goes .ono other Province 02,000 square miles, And adds to Manitoba 35, oo square miles Amount of lumber in district added to Manitoba Value of this lumber to Ontario Loss per head to the people of Ontario from timber alone otal loss to each ratepayer uot less than An annual tax forever on each taxpayer of COMPARATIVE SIZES OF THE LARGER PROVINCES

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207