MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135453546 · doi:10.1093/envhis/12.4.759

A Broken Frontier: Ecological Imperialism in the Canadian North

2007· article· en· W2135453546 on OpenAlexaffabout
Liza Piper, John Sandlos

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental History · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierColonialismEcologySubject (documents)Product (mathematics)Process (computing)AlienTemperate climateGeographyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceBiologyPoliticsArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecological imperialism is one of the most enduring models of past global environmental change. This essay argues that the application of ecological imperialism as an explanation for New World environmental change should not be limited to temperate regions where the process was so spectacularly successful. Using the Canadian North as a broad regional template, our analysis suggests that consideration of both the failures and the limited successes of ecological imperialism are critical to a more complete understanding of global colonialism. Although the Canadian North was never subject to the broad ecological transformation that occurred further to the south, attempts to colonize particular regions did occur in tandem with the successful introduction of alien species. Ecological imperialism need not be conceptualized solely as an all-encompassing process of biological transformation. Instead, efforts to colonize peripheral nontemperate regions can be understood as a product of a limited application of ecological imperialism in a New World environment.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0210.013
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental HistorySame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207