Planting the Nation's ‘Waste Lands’: Walter Scott, Forestry and the Cultivation of Scotland's Wilderness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In October 1827 the Quarterly Review included a review of the second edition of Robert Monteath's The Planter's Guide and Profitable Planter . The review was published anonymously according to custom, but the author was Sir Walter Scott. A keen amateur plantsman who would later be involved in producing official reports on tree husbandry in Scotland, Scott's interest in ecology, forestry and the cultural value of landscape was of long standing. He had spent a small fortune on trees for his Abbotsford estate, and the cost had contributed to his insolvency in 1826. The present article looks at Scott's review as a work of Romantic ecocriticism concerned with the relationships between nationhood, economics and natural sustainability. Definitions of ‘waste land’ are considered, and the use of literary references to emphasize the need for sustainable planting is explored along with debates over imported Canadian species of pine. The cultural exchange of trees for people is shown to raise interesting questions, as is the advent of the railways that Scott ignores in his essay despite his interest in that new form of transport.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".