MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009254527 · doi:10.3138/b348-4062-653m-r04p

Mapping the Wilderness: Toponymic Constructions of Cradle Mountain/Lake St Clair National Park, Tasmania, Australia

2006· article· en· W2009254527 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angela Melville

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToponymyHomelandWildernessGeographyPower (physics)ArchaeologyHistoryEthnologyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article traces the history of naming Cradle Mountain/Lake St. Clair (CM/LSC) National Park, in central western Tasmania, Australia, and, in doing so, will argue that toponyms constitute, rather than merely reflect, the landscape. The first official toponyms of the area were chosen by surveyors who visited the region in the early nineteenth century. These toponyms provide an insight into the European colonization of white settler nations, including the colonists’ desire to draw allegories between the newly discovered landscape and their European homeland. The surveyors were followed by local snarers, trappers, and farmers, and later by bushwalkers, and, through the toponyms given to CM/LSC, it is possible to consider the ways in which each of these groups has used this landscape. The article also examines other ways of knowing the landscape that are not necessarily reflected in the official toponyms. The construction of landscape through social practices such as naming is embedded within relationships of power, and this article will examine some of the ways in which the official toponyms may be contested. In particular, it will examine the differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ways of naming, and thus knowing, landscapes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and GeovisualizationSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207