The First French-Canadian National Parks: Kouchibouguac and Forillon in History and Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until the mid-1970s, the creation of a national park in Canada meant the removal of the resident population whose presence was viewed as incompatible with the preservation of nature and its presentation to visitors. Like other high-modernist schemes of the time, park projects were conceived by agents of the state whose knowledge trumped that of the people on the ground whose lives were viewed as worthless. The first nineteen of Canada’s national parks were created in areas populated predominately by English-speakers so that it was only with the creation of Kouchibouguac National Park in New Brunswick in late 1969 and Forillon National Park in Quebec eight months later that French-speakers bore the brunt of forced removal. This essay explores the dynamics regarding the creation of the first two French-Canadian national parks, both of which emerged in the midst of révolutions tranquilles, one acadienne and the other québécoise. This context shaped both the process that led to the development of the parks and to the very different ways that they have been remembered over the past forty years.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".