[The Institut de Belleville: expansion and decline of research on biological control in Canada, 1909-1972].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since the beginnings of economic entomology in Canada, research in biological control has drawn substantial support from the Federal Department of Agriculture. Enjoying a stable institutional environment with the establishment of the Dominion Parasite Laboratory in Belleville, Ontario, in 1929, biological control has also occupied an important position on the research agenda of the Department until the late sixties. Support from the scientific authorities was nevertheless fraught with important paradoxes. For example, research laboratories in biological control were built at a time when North American economic entomologists relied almost exclusively on synthetic chemical compounds like DDT. For some historians of science, the autonomy of Canadian entomologists explains the growth of this research program in the aftermath of World War II. However, the autonomy of the scientific community is a notion that is taken for granted in these historical explanations. In this article, I will demonstrate the institutional dynamic underlying the autonomy of Canadian entomologists in pursuing a research agenda suited to their interests. I will pay close attention to the role of certain actors -- foreign entomological services and the forest and pulp and paper industries - in the rise of a Canadian expertise in biological control. As well, I will show how their interventions forced a reorganization of research on the biological control of insect pests in agriculture and in forestry, and how this reorganization eventually entailed the dismantling of the Belleville laboratory in 1972.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
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".