MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120198996 · doi:10.1525/phr.2010.79.3.418

Building a Green Dam: Environmental Modernism and the Canadian-American Libby Dam Project

2010· article· en· W2120198996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip Van Huizen

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Historical Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernism (music)CONQUESTPromotion (chess)Natural (archaeology)Structural basinArchaeologyCivil engineeringHistoryEngineeringGeologyPolitical scienceLawAncient historyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines a fundamental shift in ideas about development, from high modernism in the early twentieth century to environmental modernism after 1960, illustrated by the promotion and construction of the Libby Dam Project in the Canadian-American Kootenay River Basin. In the 1940s Canadian and U.S. planners originally promoted the dam by stressing the rational conquest of nature through science and technology. When construction began in 1966, however, pressure from a growing environmental movement changed how planners designed and constructed the Libby Dam and its reservoir, Lake Koocanusa. The later planners implemented mitigation measures, "blended" the dam and reservoir into the landscape, and appropriated First Nations' symbols to make the project seem like a natural part of the Canadian-American Kootenay Basin. Thus, in both countries, planners reflected the shift from high modernism to environmental modernism.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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