Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the emergence of colonial ornithology in Upper Canada, 1791-1841, to determine the impact of empire and local contexts on the natural history activity. I argue that colonial ornithology emerged as a by-product of British imperialism that helped to reinforce British, upper- and middle-class, gender-specific white identities through practices of sportsman-hunting, taxidermy, natural theology, and the romantic-aesthetic. However, as this paper reveals, British imperial practices and ideas of ornithology relied on the participation of First Nations and Métis peoples, whose knowledge and skills were instrumental to British naturalists. The First Nations and Métis peoples therefore exerted a real presence in colonial ornithology in Upper Canada--albeit a subservient one in the British ornithological texts--as they positioned themselves as part of the ornithological trade with the collection and trading of specimens. Furthermore, British military officers, settlers, and tourists tapped into American scientific networks and knowledge systems rather than focusing solely on Britain as an imperial centre of accumulation. British imperial ideas and practices of colonial ornithology in Upper Canada therefore remained ambiguous during the early nineteenth 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".