Imposing Discipline Upon Nature: Gardens, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry in Cape Breton, 1713-1758
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines horticulture in Ile Royale (Cape Breton) and focuses on the French attempt to grow food through the introduction of gardens, animals and small mixed farms (menageries). Adapting to the colder climate and marginal soil of first, Newfoundland, and then Cape Breton, the French introduced innovative solutions to the difficulties of land infertility. The French had confidence—given enough manpower—that anything was possible. By building roads, bridges, filling marshes, removing rocks, transporting rich soil, making raised beds, creating ponds, wells, fountains, using glass bells, fertilizer, seaweed, lime and compost, they imposed a discipline upon nature and transformed the most barren ground into bountiful gardens. Résumé Cet article sur l’horticulture dans l’Île Royale (Cap-Breton) décrit les efforts des Français pour subvenir à leurs besoins alimentaires au moyen de potagers, de bétail et de petites fermes mixtes («ménageries»). Pour composer avec le climat plus froid et le sol mince de Terre-Neuve, puis du Cap-Breton, les Français ont appliqué diverses solutions novatrices au problème de la pauvreté des sols. Convaincus que rien n’était impossible s’ils y mettaient la main-d’œuvre suffisante, les Français ont construit des routes et des ponts, rempli des marécages, épierré les sols, importé du terreau fertile, aménagé des plates-bandes surélevées, créé des étangs, des puits et des fontaines, utilisé des cloches de verre, de l’engrais, des algues, du calcaire et du compost, bref, ils ont plié la nature à leurs besoins et transformé les terres les plus pauvres en généreux potagers.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".