Farm Forestry in Agricultural Southern Ontario, ca. 1850-1940: Evolving Strategies in the Management and Conservation of Forests, Soils and Water on Private Lands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early settlers in southern Ontario aspired to become prosperous land-owning farmers; they began by cutting trees. Within a few decades, wind and water, unimpeded by forest cover, devastated soil and crops. Farmers were encouraged by groups such as the Ontario Fruit Growers’ Association to reforest some of their land. Farm forestry, as part of scientific agriculture, had a strong beginning in the early 1900s with the Ontario Agricultural and Experimental Union, but that movement was poorly supported until the 1930s, when the relationship between deforestation and water supplies reached a crisis. The Ontario Conservation and Reforestation Association (OCRA) and the Ontario Crop Improvement Association (OCIA) were created in agricultural southern Ontario in 1937-8 after a disastrously hot dry summer. Each organization interpreted the conservation of natural resources in profoundly different ways: the OCRA as a movement to create forest resources on public property, and the OCIA as management of privately-owned farmlands to improve crop production.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".