om a "Whopper" to a "Green and Clean" development : modernity, environmentalism, and the Canadian-American Libby Dam Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1940s, planners in both the American West and British Columbia were in the throes of what anthropologist James Scott has termed "high modernism." Development rhetoric during this period promoted the construction of large dams in ways that stressed the rational "conquest of nature" using tools provided by science and technology. The Libby Project, included as part of the Columbia River Treaty and located along the Kootenay River in northwestern Montana and southeastern British Columbia, was initially promoted in a similar fashion. By the time construction of the Libby Dam began in 1966, though, a growing environmental movement changed how planners, such as the US Army Corps of Engineers in Montana and various scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats in British Columbia, described and designed the Libby Dam and its reservoir, Lake Koocanusa. This thesis traces how the "environmental turn" affected the Libby Project from 1948 to the late 1970s. I argue that the larger North American environmental movement gave pre-existing conservation groups and government agencies in Montana and British Columbia greater influence over politicians and legislation. In response, Libby Project planners implemented mitigation measures, "blended" the dam and reservoir into the Kootenay landscape, and appropriated First Nation's symbols and artefacts to make the project seem "native" to the Canadian-American Kootenay Basin. Such efforts also affected how local residents in the area viewed environmentalism and the Libby Dam. In this way, Libby project experts and Kootenay residents were affected by, and a part of, the more general shift from high modernism to environmental modernism that occurred in North America in the mid-to-late twentieth century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".