MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7055603374

Daniel McDougall pension statement, 1824

2022· other· en· W7055603374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattleSiegeCabinet (room)Spanish Civil WarGovernment (linguistics)StalemateWorld War IIGerman
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Daniel McDougall (1796-1870) served in the York Militia during the War of 1812. He was a successful businessman who worked as a Justice of the Peace in St. Mary’s, Ontario. He married Hannah Church and they had many children. Their son William was a cabinet minister in Sir John A. MacDonald’s first federal government and was appointed lieutenant-governor of the North-West Territories. The Battle of Lundy’s Lane was a major battle of the War of 1812. On July 25, 1814, the American General Winfield Scott led a brigade of about 1000 men from Chippawa along the Portage Road towards Lundy's Lane. The British had already established their guns on the high ground at Lundy's Lane in anticipation of a possible advance by the Americans. When the British saw Scott's forces in the evening, they opened fire. The battle proved to be the most violent one of the war, with heavy casualties on both sides, and continued into the night. The British General Phineas Riall was captured. The American Generals Brown and Scott were severely wounded and were forced to withdraw. Around midnight, the Americans left, heading towards Chippawa. They withdrew to Fort Erie, with British General Drummond following and beginning a siege of the fort in August.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1110.051

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)→Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics→French-language works237,207→