Samuel Wilmot, Fish Culture, and Recreational Fisheries in late 19th century Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians have shown that fish culturists and anglers enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship in 19th century North America. Sharing interests in producing and protecting fish for recreation, the two groups supported emerging regimes of fisheries administration and fish culture that privileged angling and game fish species. In Ontario, it has been argued that anglers achieved control of inland fisheries with help from state fish culturist Samuel Wilmot who, as a sportsman, shared anglers' recreational perspective. A closer look at Wilmot and fish culture in late 19th century Ontario, however, reveals a more complex struggle over recreational fisheries administration. I show that game fish culture under Wilmot was subordinated to fish culture programs that supported the Great Lakes commercial fisheries. Indeed, Wilmot resisted anglers' reframing of Ontario's fisheries as a private recreational resource. By the 1890s, however, this position was unpopular with Ontario's anglers and government officials, who demanded greater provincial control over recreational fisheries and fish culture. It was only after Wilmot's retirement in 1895 that game fish culture received higher priority in Ontario with both federal and provincial governments engaging in programs of wild bass transfers. In 1899, Ontario won a share of fisheries jurisdiction and established its first provincial fisheries administration, which laid the basis for more comprehensive programs of game fish culture in the 20th century.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".