MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193438097 · doi:10.1353/his.2015.0036

Reclaiming the Don: An Environmental History of Toronto’s Don River Valley by Jennifer L. Bonnell (review)

2015· article· en· W2193438097 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mark Cioc-Ortega

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental historyArchaeologyDrainage basinSquare (algebra)Flood mythGeographyMileHistoryEconomic history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Reclaiming the Don: An Environmental History of Toronto’s Don River Valley by Jennifer L. Bonnell Mark Cioc-Ortega Bonnell, Jennifer L. – Reclaiming the Don: An Environmental History of Toronto’s Don River Valley. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. Pp. 316. The Don is a small river, just 24 miles long with a 139 square mile catchment area, best known as the river that flows through Toronto, Canada’s largest metropolis. Its headwaters are in the Oak Ridges Moraine of Ontario and it empties into Lake Ontario. Nearly 90 percent of the Don’s basin has been usurped for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes, making it one of the most urbanized (1.2 million people) and environmentally endangered watersheds in North America today. Yet the river’s small size, the author argues, has tended to mask its central role in the making of modern Ontario. Whereas nearly everyone understands the importance of the Mississippi to New Orleans, the Ruhr to Duisburg, and the Huangpu to Shanghai, few have grasped the importance of the Don to Toronto’s history. Reclaiming the Don covers a time span of two centuries, from the founding of York (modern-day Toronto) in the 1790s to the most recent urban renewal projects of the early twenty first century. As the city expanded decade after decade, city planners and engineers gradually transformed the landscape of the Don valley to fit the ever-changing needs of urban dwellers. Hills were levelled and flood plains reclaimed; the main riverbed was canalized and branches removed; river water was pumped out for use in industry and then returned to its bed as a polluted waste. Each chapter of the book focuses on a different facet of these transformations: the creation of an industrial wasteland on the lower reaches of the Don during the mid- to late nineteenth century; the implementation of river improvement projects during the early twentieth century; the emergence of a “hobo jungle” of outcasts and unemployed on the urban outskirts, before and during the Great Depression; the partially successful efforts to restore and clean up the river during the mid-twentieth century; and current efforts to re-naturalize small portions of the waterway and delta. [End Page 566] That the Don jumpstarted the town of York in the 1790s can scarcely be doubted: its high hills offered good conditions for water mills and its flood plain offered fertile space for agriculture and urban expansion. In the mid-nineteenth century, its broad lower banks facilitated Toronto’s industrial development, even as its measured flow made it a relatively easy river to manipulate and control, albeit one more suitable as an industrial sink than as a hydroelectric producer or transport route. Over time the river became heavily polluted, even if Torontonians did manage to avoid having their river become the poster child of environmental neglect—à la Ohio’s Cuyahoga River, famous for periodically bursting into flames—through some timely cleanup and restoration projects in the mid- to late twentieth century (though it is worth pointing out that the author begins her book with a hilarious account of Princess Margaret’s visit to Toronto’s foul-smelling river on July 31, 1958). Charles Sauriol played a big role in these important restoration projects, as the author makes clear in a chapter devoted solely to him and the Don Valley Conservation Association that he co-founded. Despite the title, this book is less about the ecological restoration of the Don than about the environmental consequences of an ever-expanding Toronto cityscape. What has defined (and confined) Toronto’s river the most for the past half century has been the Don Valley Parkway (DVP), constructed between 1958 and 1966, at a time when, paradoxically, conservationist sentiment was running strong. The DVP is Toronto’s only major north-south expressway and it is now so thoroughly jammed with cars and trucks (“Don Valley Parking Lot” is its nickname) that it is hard to imagine what driving in Toronto would be like had it never been built. But its construction, as the author notes, also killed the dream of restoring the Don: For urban ecologists seeking to revitalize a neglected urban...

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)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207