MINERS AT WORK, A HISTORY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA’S GOLD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The search for gold is the single most dramatic event of British Columbia’s early history. Although European settlement originally was founded on furs, it was the gold rushes of 1858 through the 1860s that changed the direction of development in this province for considerable time. These gold rushes not only brought a sharp increase in population and wealth but also initiated development of an early infrastructure of roads and services and directly influenced the shape of British Columbia’s politics. It has been estimated that between 1860 and 1880 about $35 000 000 worth of gold was extracted from the 130 square kilometres (50 square miles) surrounding Barkerville. Although the later gold rushes were smaller, they also played an important role in our history. The rush to British Columbia was only one of a series of sudden shifts in population and wealth that resulted from the search for placer gold. California and Australia both attracted hordes of miners in search of riches. This paper places the British Columbia gold rush in a world context; it drew less world attention and was smaller than either the Californian or Australian rushes. The discussion then follows, in some detail, the progress of the early miners up the Fraser River in 1858, past Hill’s Bar, reputedly the richest bar in North America, and on into the Cariboo and Barkerville in the 1860s. Particular attention will be paid to the interaction of the government and the miners, especially as highlighted by the Ned McGowan incident of 1859 and the Grouse Creek war of 1867. An examination will also be made of the life of the miners and the conditions under which they worked, as well as the wealth they extracted. A brief look at some highlights of other British Columbia gold rushes, starting with Rock Creek in 1860 and ending with Atlin in 1898, will also be presented.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.008 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".