Yes, this is the context, but the study doesn't mention the Pauling protocol.
Pauling advocated doses much larger than 1 g. I'm not defending Pauling's position. I just want to point out that the study didn't examine Pauling's recommendation.
It so happens I have a copy of Vitamin C and the Common Cold (c) 1970. In Chapter 10 (page 86 of my paperback), in the section, "How to Ameliorate a Cold," he says, "At the first sign that a cold is developing, the first feeling of scratchiness of the throat, or presence of mucus in the nose, or muscle pain or general malaise, begin the treatment by swallowing one or two 500-mg tablets. Continue the treatment for several hours by taking an additional tablet or two tablets every hour."
"If the symptoms disappear quickly after the first or second dose of ascorbic acid, you may feel safe returning to your usual regimen. If, however, the symptoms are present on the second day, the regimen should be continued, with the ingestion of 4g to 10 g of ascorbic acid per day."
I often see this phenomenon when mainstream medicine designs studies to test claims by supplement advocates. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that many of these studies are intended to produce a negative result. I can't find the particular citation I have in mind at the moment, but there was a study on vitamin D for some illness, but the amount of vitamin D given was something like 400iu, the RDA (or maybe it was 800iu). The study then concluded that that dosage made no difference, which is probably is true, but idiotic. I mean, it's worth knowing that the low dose made no difference, but it doesn't justify the headline, "Vitamin D not helpful for ...." Also, I think the study used D2 (the plant form), which is not equivalent to D3, the animal form. (D2 provides some benefit if D3 is not available, but it is not the same thing.)