MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115391554

The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Newspapers that Told the Story

2025· article· en· W7115391554 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperNarrativeNatural (archaeology)Canadian studiesPeriod (music)Government (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The railways have been an important topic within Canadian history and a large contributor of the founding of Canada. There has been in-depth research in the ways the railroads affected Canada. There was an earlier debate around the idea of why the railway was built exploring possible reasons of national identity, defense from the United States and profiteering from businessmen and politicians. There was another stream of research that takes the Annales school of history approach focusing on the peoples’ lived experiences and drawing many conclusions on how that impacted Canada. There was a post-modernist approach to the effects on Canadian culture from the railways. There is a segment of literature on the opinions of everyday citizens on the railways and those who were in favor of the railways and those opposed to the building of the railways. This research has built a strong narrative of the major events that occurred at the political, business, and working-class citizen level. There has been many different academic approaches and biography’s that tell the story of the individual and the country at large. There was an apparent gap in this research in understanding how the different newspapers covered the Canadian Pacific Railway and the scandal surrounding its building. I argued throughout this thesis that after the founding of Canada in 1867, both the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada attempted to become the natural governing party of Canada and this fight occurred in the different partisan newspapers and spilled over into debates about the railways.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0590.021
Scholarly communication0.0150.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University)Same topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207