Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. : Letter addressed to the Globe newspaper, 6th May, 1861.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The organ of the Government in this City-the " Morning Chronicle,"-came out with a leader on Saturday, on the subject of this Railway.The Morning Chronicle attacks the veracity of a paragraph which appeared in your columns some days since -the statement made by you was truthful in every particular-the state- ments made by the Chronicle, are entirely the reverse of truth-and so much so, that before replying to them, I cannot but ask you to allow me the opportunity of giving the Chroniclers article in full- it is as follows : " THE GRAND TRUNK." We learn by telegraph from Quebec that a parliamentary agent, representing the English bondholders of the Grand Trunk, has submitted a scheme to the Government for the bondholders workinsr the line, to protect themselves, without prejudice to other interests.It is understood that the Government have refused to introduce or allow the introduction of a bill to facilitate this object."" The Globe is not fully informed as to the facts connected with the Grand Trunk Bondholders' propositions, neither does it speak with honest candor as to what is "understood" of the intentions of theGovernment.We believe several applications have been made by the preference bondholders, not for Acts of Parliament, not fcr facilities, but for money, and the Globe will admit that were the Government disposed to grant these appeals, they could not comply with them.Even were the bondholders entitled to demand assistance, they are not in a position to receive it.They are quarrelling among themselves and with every party with whom they have to deal.They have instituted suits here and suits there, and if their
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.023 |
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".