Permeable Border: The Great Lakes Basin as Transnational Region, 1650-1990
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
John J. Bukowczyk, Nora Faires, David W. Smith, and Randy William Widdis. Permeable Border: The Great Lakes Basin as Transnational Region, 1650-1990. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005. vii + 298 pp. $34.95 cloth. Permeable Border, the outgrowth of conference held at Wayne State University about the Great Lakes region and the international boundary dividing its lakes and lands, makes real contribution to understanding the region's development over the centuries. It focuses on the flow of people, capital, and goods in the Great Lakes area before and after its political division in 1783 as the major elements in creating the transnational region. While Canadian and American historians have generally emphasized main themes in their national experiences and given far less attention to the interrelationship of regional economic and cultural developments that transcend the border, many have dealt specifically with various parts thereof, some large and some small. To study the Great Lakes region comprehensively over the centuries, fluid and hard to define as that region is, involves challenge in conceptualization, in mastery of relevant literature, and in basic research. The results of the work of the four authors--three historians and one geographer--presented in Permeable Border offer readers an impressive historical overview of the Great Lakes region and suggest future directions for study. The book is divided into seven units, each focusing on segment of the whole and presenting different perspective on the subject. In the initial chapter, historian Bukowczyk explains the authors' perception of border as an artificial and permeable line and a principal mechanism for articulating and implementing immigration, economic development, and nation-building policies while it has become, on symbolic level, the embodiment of national identity and sovereignty (3). Here he sets forth the goal of the book as an attempt to correct deficiency in current studies of American-Canadian history--namely, consideration of the interrelated nature of American and Canadian economic development in the Great Lakes region. Here the authors deny intention of arguing for Canadian-American political merger or any other such arrangement that would compromise Canadian (or American) sovereignty, unity, or cultural integrity (9). In the two following chapters, Bukowczyk examines the roles of trade, wars, migration, transportation, and capital during the years 1650-1890 in the Great Lakes basin as major ingredients in the development of transnational region. The intricately woven account of the period 1660-1815 relates the interaction between the Native Peoples, the French, the British, and the young United States from the perspective of its impact on the Great Lakes region. In the process the French bow out and the Native Peoples are irreparably weakened by war, disease, and alcohol. British North America and the young United States are left as the principal contenders seeking to dominate the region's natural resources. Whose transnational region was it? (28). That was the question in 1815. Bukowczyk's treatment of the period 1815-1890 traces the impact of the transportation revolution--canal, railroad, and road building--in the two nations, all three major influences on economic development. …
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».