Plan of a Fort proposed to be erected at Mississaugue Pt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historic map showing the Town of Newark (present day Niagara-on-the-Lake) at the mouth of the Niagara River at Lake Ontario. North is oriented to the bottom right. The focus of this plan are the military Forts at three different locations, specifically the plan of a for at Mississaugue Point. On the Canadian side of the river at the mouth of the lake is a plan for the proposed fort. The fort includes buildings which are labelled alphabetically. Below the title is a reference lists which outlines details of each building. This plan is quite similar to NMC-17884, however this particular plan includes the following notation regarding Fort Mississaugue: “Memorandum. The site of the Fort as shewn in this Plan is different from that marked on the ground in the Autumn of 1815, it having been placed further back from the Lake & the Tower brought into the center of the flat Bastion.” Further south Fort George is shown. 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 in shading. A notation on the soundings is as follows: “The Soundings and Bar of Niagara are Copied from a plan surveyed and drawn by Mr. Chillingworth Master of H. M. S. St. Lawrence 1815.” Plan bears the stamp of the Office of Commanding Royal Engineer’s Canada.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.468 | 0.180 |
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".