Federal Spaces, Local Conflicts: National Parks and the Exclusionary Politics of the Conservation Movement in Ontario, 1900-1935
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
The historical displacement of indigenous and non-Native people from national parks and nature preserves has often been analyzed as a deliberate imposition of state authority over local people living in rural and hinterland regions. The cases of Point Pelee and Georgian Bay Islands National Parks indicate that local people had considerable influence over the siting and management policies applied to parks and protected areas in the early twentieth century. Although the federal government did attempt to either expel or severely curtail the wildlife harvesting activities of Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals living within the national parks during this period, such policies were often the result of lobbying from local conservation groups intent on saving threatened wildlife populations or business promoters hoping to stimulate the local tourist economy through the creation of a public pleasuring ground. This paper argues that the management frameworks governing Point Pelee and Georgian Bay Islands National Parks were not the product of narrow state interests, but of a much broader policy community composed of local and state actors hoping to shape the park environments to suit their own political priorities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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