MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2106063367 · doi:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2003.tb00023.x

The Geography of the Russell Fence

2003· article· en· W2106063367 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Eley, Cherie Northon

Notice bibliographique

RevueGeographical Review · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueArchaeology and Natural History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGeographerFence (mathematics)George (robot)Settlement (finance)Style (visual arts)Character (mathematics)HistoryArchaeologyArt historyGeographySociologyCartography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Fences have been an enduring topic of inquiry by geographers, particularly John Fraser Hart, Cotton Mather, Terry Jordan-Bychkov, Jon Kilpinen, and Charles Gritzner. As Hart and Mather aptly pointed out, [American] fences should not be ignored by the geographer or landscape analyst, for the fence is a significant index of settlement stage and character, as well as often being a clue to the physical environment. Few landscape elements combine so finely the characteristics of the resource base, the cultural matrix and its historical antecedents (1957, 4). We are geographers from the Berkeley School, and we became intrigued with a particular style of fence, the so-called Russell fence (Figure 1), in 1999 while working on another project. Our original objective was to document fifty years of landscape change along the highways of western Canada and Alaska using a technique known as (Figures 2 and 3). The possibilities and perils of this technique have been shown effectively in explorations of landscape change in the American Southwest (Hastings and Turner 1980; Bahre 1991), and there is a rich tradition of the use of repeat photography in many studies (Rogers, Malde, and Turner 1984). The baseline photographs and their locations for our study came from George R. Stewart's N.A. 1: The North-South Continental Highway (1957). Stewart was an English professor who began teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1920s, such greats as Carl Sauer were shaping Berkeley's geographical tradition. In our opinion, Stewart was also very much a geographer. His book features thirty-eight photographs he took along the Trans-Canada, Cariboo, Hart, and Alaska Highways in the early 1950s. They are accompanied by short essays on the photographs' subject matter, histories of the region (particularly the evolution of transportation), and several maps drawn by Erwin Raisz. For his essay on the Dry Belt, which describes the transitional zones of vegetation and land use along the Cariboo Highway, Stewart photographed an area just south of Lac La Hache, British Columbia (Figure 2). Here he introduced readers to the Russell fence, a Western fence type that evolved in the Cariboo and Chilcotin region of central British Columbia (Figure 4). Interestingly, nearly one-third of the Dry Belt discussion is devoted to the Russell fence. Stewart described its typical form, admitted that he was unable to establish the origin of the name Russell, noted that this type of fence was characteristic of the region, and speculated that it might have evolved when local lumber [was] still to be had for the taking but after wire [had] become cheap (1957, 75). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] In the summer of 2002, we were reshooting Stewart's photograph near Lac La Hache (Figure 3), his comments so piqued our interest that we decided to further explore and report on the etymology, distribution, history, and status of the Russell fence some fifty years after Stewart took his photographs. The methodology we used for investigating the Russell fence is best summarized by Jordan and his colleagues in their study of the Mountain West: Implicit in the cultural landscape methodology is a heavy emphasis upon field research.... We present here observations and conclusions based on first-hand inspections.... We distrust data gathered in any other manner (Jordan, Kilpinen, and Gritzner 1997, 8). We recorded our observations by location using GPS, maps, and photographs between 1999 and 2002 and summarize our findings in this note. THE RUSSELL FENCE The unique and indigenous Russell fence is based on a series of quadripodal, tripodal, or X-shaped bucks--stanchions--which support the top rails that run between and are wired to their crotches (Figure 5). Suspended from this system by wire are the lower rails, which, Jordan, Kilpinen, and Gritzner note (1997, 99), is what distinguishes the Russell fence from other Western fences, such as the jack-leg and the buck. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,089
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,178

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,009
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,286
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueGeographical ReviewMême sujetArchaeology and Natural HistoryTravaux en français237 207