MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158441693

Tracks, Tunnels and Trestles: An Environmental History of the Construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, 1883-1885

2009· article· en· W2158441693 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Heather Anne Longworth

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Graduate History Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRock blastingDeforestation (computer science)GeographyForensic engineeringEngineeringMining engineeringComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) was not a conquest of man over nature as some historians have suggested and the driving of the last spike did not cement that victory. By studying the CPR from an environmental perspective, it becomes obvious that the relationship between the people and the environment in the mountains was two-fold: workers had an effect on the environment through fires, deforestation, excavation, and blasting, and the environment likewise had an effect on workers through the hardships of weather, challenging terrain, avalanches, and floods. Shortcuts, such as steep grades and wooden bridges, taken by the CPR throughout construction to save money and time, as well as the poor route choice, had unintended consequences for the operation of the railway. Massive deforestation and fires had repercussions for the watershed of the eastern Rocky Mountains and the choice of Rogers Pass meant that the CPR had to deal with numerous avalanches and deep snow. Steep grades and lines that were easily flooded or open to avalanches resulted in the deaths of numerous workers and expensive repairs to engines and the track. The construction of the CPR also had a notable impact on western Canada as it opened up the land to tourism, settlement, agriculture, and the lumber and mining industries. In building and operating the line, the CPR had to learn to adapt to the environment in order to carry out repairs quickly and get trains through.

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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Graduate History ReviewSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207