MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053281878 · doi:10.1353/can.2010.0006

Taking the Air: Ideas and Change in Canada’s National Parks (review)

2010· article· en· W2053281878 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Brad Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkPoliticsContext (archaeology)PeriodizationAppealPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsPublic administrationHistoryLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Taking the Air: Ideas and Change in Canada’s National Parks Brad Martin Taking the Air: Ideas and Change in Canada’s National Parks. Paul Kopas. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008. Pp. 248, $85.00 cloth, $32.95 paper In comparison with scholarly historical literature on national parks in other nations, particularly the United States, Canada’s is sparse. A few [End Page 589] excellent recent studies notwithstanding, existing work lacks analytical depth and often focuses on circumstances in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is especially telling that on the eve of the centenary of the Canadian national parks branch in 2011 we still have no adequate scholarly treatment of the national park system as a whole. Therefore, Paul Kopas’s Taking the Air, a study of environmental policy in the national parks since the mid-1950s, is a welcome contribution. It is especially valuable because it situates institutional change in the parks branch within a wider context of social and political developments and draws attention to the critical roles played by environmental interest groups and northern Aboriginal peoples in shaping park management. Unfortunately, while the book may be well received by policy analysts and political scientists, its schematic conceptual framework and flawed methodology will likely limit its appeal among historians. The book is organized into four substantive chapters that correspond with Kopas’s periodization of postwar environmental policy development. These chapters are bracketed by a brief discussion of the history of the national park system before mid-century, an introduction that explores the social meanings of national parks and outlines the book’s analytical objectives, and a conclusion that summarizes the findings of each chapter. Throughout the book, Kopas focuses on the relationships among the ideas, institutions, and interest groups that have defined the arena in which national park policy has taken shape. His main argument is that broad ‘contextualizing ideas’ about such matters as government decision-making, the economy, and state–society relations provide the most convincing explanation for changes in the provisions for environmental protection in the National Parks Act. In developing this line of argument, he examines how key developments on the national and international stage have influenced the parks branch and how policy formation within it has recently been ‘repossessed by the state’ following years of meaningful input by public interest groups in the 1970s and 1980s. While Kopas’s effort to provide a historical perspective on parks policy is commendable, weaknesses in his research design result in significant problems. First, his treatment of historical events often glosses over important complexities in the name of theoretical tidiness. The upshot is a cut-and-paste narrative in which nuanced and multifaceted developments are dramatically simplified in order to make analytical points. At other times, he doesn’t take advantage of recent scholarship to offer more critical perspectives on historical events. In particular, his discussions of the impacts of the northern land claims [End Page 590] movement on parks policy and the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and environmentalists would have been far more penetrating had they carefully considered the rich body of historical and anthropological literature on northern conservation and natural resources. Moreover, Kopas makes numerous claims about historical events that are simply not supported with evidence or properly referenced. For example, footnotes are absent from large sections of this book and, while the authors’ interviews with a number of important figures in national park history are valuable contributions, he apparently made little attempt to corroborate their testimony by examining the documentary record. Indeed, perhaps the biggest flaw in this book is that the author chose not to consult the available organizational records of Parks Canada and its predecessor agencies at Library and Archives Canada, instead focusing his investigations primarily on public documents. In the absence of such an inquiry, Kopas can shed only dim light on internal discussions among park administrators, which leads one to question the causal link he posits between policy developments and the broader policy context in which they occurred. Fundamentally, Taking the Air (the title is never adequately explained) is less about politics per se than the broad intellectual and institutional conditions that have facilitated changes in the...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207