"Wedded to the Marshes": Salt Marshes and Socio-Economic Differentiation in Early Prince Edward Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FOR MANY YEARS CONSIDERABLE SCHOLARSHIP has focused on what Island historians call the “Land Question” – the political relations engendered by the proprietary system of landholding that dominated Prince Edward Island history between 1767 and 1875. Over the past two decades, however, much has been learned about the development of social and economic differentiation within the rural communities of 19th-century Atlantic Canada and Quebec.1 Prince Edward Island history has not generally benefited from this approach. The extent of social and economic differentiation among the Island’s squatters, tenant and freehold farmers remains relatively unknown, and issues of rural social and economic development have also received limited attention. As a result, most Island historiography continues to imply that rural society was a roughly egalitarian community of tenant families.2 Certainly the development of freehold tenure on the Island was hindered by a number of proprietors who refused to sell land at reasonable prices, if they agreed to sell at all. Nevertheless, significant numbers of freehold landowners did emerge from the ranks of the tenantry, and by 1833 they numbered one-third (32.8 per cent) of the Island’s landholders and possessed 41 per cent of the occupied land area. The manner in which this process took place has not been addressed, but if the testimony given before the land commissions of 1860 and 1875 is reliable, the explanation for the development of social and economic differentiation among rural families is relatively straightforward. Those families who were fortunate enough to raise themselves above the ranks of the tenantry had been able to accumulate the necessary capital – as a result of favourable social and economic variables – to purchase the title to their property.3
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".