The Committee on Lands of the Conservation Commission, Canada, 1909-1921: Romantic Agrarianism in Ontario in an Age of Agricultural Realism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Conservation Commission of Canada (CCC) was formed in 1909 as an advisory body to Liberal Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier. It was divided into eight committees, each of which dealt with the management of a specific natural resource. The Committee on Lands (CL) was composed of members who were unable to accept or understand the changes in contemporary agriculture as it moved into the twentieth century. Dr. James Robertson, chair of the CL, was a staunch agrarian romantic, who believed that the most important attribute of agriculture was the moral, individual and spiritual benefit which it conveyed to the individual. The recommendations and projects of the CL were inappropriate and often outdated and redundant. Their endeavours were noted and appreciated by farmers, but their work had no lasting effect on agriculture in Ontario. The official concept of 'conservation', defined by the CCC, was based on efficient management of Canadian natural resources, including the soil. In reality, the CL interpreted conservation to mean the preservation of a vanishing rural lifestyle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".