Recentering North American Environmental History: Pedagogy and Scholarship in the Great Lakes Region
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We lay out a rationale for a new scholarly subfield—the environmental history of the Great Lakes—that Canadian and U.S. scholars can develop together. This project began as an attempt to teach environmental history in a way that stressed the importance of our region to our Wisconsin- and Michigan-based students. But classroom experiences convinced us that Great Lakes environmental history has been neglected, both because of its transnational character and because of biases within the field of environmental history. The Great Lakes have important stories to tell. They are at once representative of the larger narratives of both the United States and Canada, and also demonstrate the exceptional history of each nation. They provide an opportunity to explore comparative and transnational history. The Great Lakes also are fundamentally important in their own right for their industries, environments, and abundant resources.
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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it