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
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it