MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126838810 · doi:10.1177/1206331202005003001

Production and Consumption of Wilderness in Algonquin Park

2002· article· en· W2126838810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jody Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueSpace and Culture · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildernessConsumption (sociology)GeographyPoliticsSubject (documents)SociologySpace (punctuation)State (computer science)Wilderness areaSquare (algebra)Environmental ethicsEcologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates Algonquin Provincial Park, a 7,600 square kilometer “wilderness” park, located just north of Toronto, Ontario. The park markets itself as a place where one can experience nature in a more or less primordial state, but things—even natural things—are not always as they appear. Rather, it is the appearance of things, and the processes through which they are made to appear, that are subject to critical analysis. Not only a concrete, ecological space, Algonquin Park is also a discursive geography: The landscape is “read” by its visitors. This article emphasizes three distinct but interrelated productive and consumptive processes and practices: material (ecologies), discursive (text), and touristic (experience). Spatial production of wilderness is enmeshed in late capitalist economics and politics, whereas its consumption is structured to reproduce class distinction.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations29
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpace and CultureSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207