MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995776963 · doi:10.7202/037437ar

To Visit and to Cut Down: Tourism, Forestry, and the Social Construction of Nature in Twentieth-Century Northeastern Ontario

2009· article· en· W1995776963 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jocelyn Field Thorpe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildernessTourismScholarshipWilderness areaPower (physics)Social justiceEnvironmental ethicsGeographyEthnologyPolitical scienceSociologyHistorySocial scienceArchaeologyEcologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper relies on the insights of social nature scholarship to trace the historical forest conservationist and tourism discourses through which Temagami, Ontario, became famous as a site of wild forest nature. The discursive practices associated with Temagami tourism and forest conservation in the early twentieth century did not merely reflect a self-evident wilderness, but rather constituted the region as a wild place for non-Native people both to visit and to extract for profit. The social construction of Temagami wilderness came to appear natural through the erasure of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai’s claim to the Temagami region, an erasure that persisted in environmentalists’ struggle to “save” the Temagami wilderness in the late 1980s. Revealing the histories and power relationships embedded in wilderness is part of the struggle toward greater justice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207