Selling the Scenery or Preserving the Wilderness: Canadian Members of Parliament and their Views on the Purpose of National Parks, 1945–64
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Canadian parliamentary discussion on national parks from 1945 to 1964 and traces how the members of Parliament viewed the purpose of national parks and the value of nature. The article shows how comments in the House of Commons reflected local concerns and the ambiguity Canadians felt about national parks, with opinions shifting between the development of tourism and recreational use and the need to preserve natural areas. Discussion in the House indicated a clear focus on development in the comments of politicians who spoke for constituency interests and the developmental opportunities parks offered politicians’ local areas. While the members were aware of the purpose of parks in preserving areas in their natural condition, they opted to seek economic development through tourism and argued that areas with little tourism potential were not suitable for park purposes. The article concludes that even though the parks were viewed in terms of their development possibilities, during the early 1960s the preservationist sentiment gained more ground. The idea of preservation was still, however, mostly concerned with the preservation of park environments for their recreational use.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".