MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052143954

Plan of a Fort proposed to be erected at Mississauga Point

2016· other· en· W7052143954 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrostatic Discharge in Electronics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrenchGeorge (robot)Section (typography)YardPlan (archaeology)Point (geometry)Excavation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historical map showing the Town of Newark (present day Niagara-on-the-Lake), west of the mouth of the Niagara River at Lake Ontario. North is oriented to the Bottom right. A proposed fort is shown at Mississauga Point. Buildings within the fort are labelled alphabetically, which correspond to a description of each building in the reference text below the title. The fort was to include the following: casemated cavalier, barracks for 700 men, guard house, solitary cells, orderly rooms, store house, bomb proof magazine, officers’ quarters, tower, battery’s, and a furnace for heating shot. Further south Fort George is shown as it was before the war and as it was after being altered by the Americans. A trench is shown extending from Fort George north and ending at a church. Text within the trench reads: “American Entrenchments thrown up in 1813.” Shown between the two forts, on the bank of the river are lots for merchants, shops and yards as well as engineer’s quarters. On the American side of the river, Fort Niagara is shown with buildings labelled alphabetically. A description titled: “State of Fort Niagara in February 1815” provides further details about each building. The map also indicates soundings for the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. At the right side of the map is a section titled: Section through ABCD.” Relief is shown by shading.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.171
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)Same topicElectrostatic Discharge in ElectronicsFrench-language works237,207