MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W253038417

Permeable Border: The Great Lakes Basin as Transnational Region, 1650-1990

2006· article· en· W253038417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret Beattie Bogue

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographerConceptualizationPoliticsSubject (documents)State (computer science)Capital (architecture)SociologyHistoryGeographyPolitical scienceLawArchaeologyEconomic geographyLibrary science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John J. Bukowczyk, Nora Faires, David W. Smith, and Randy William Widdis. Permeable Border: The Great Lakes Basin as Transnational Region, 1650-1990. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005. vii + 298 pp. $34.95 cloth. Permeable Border, the outgrowth of conference held at Wayne State University about the Great Lakes region and the international boundary dividing its lakes and lands, makes real contribution to understanding the region's development over the centuries. It focuses on the flow of people, capital, and goods in the Great Lakes area before and after its political division in 1783 as the major elements in creating the transnational region. While Canadian and American historians have generally emphasized main themes in their national experiences and given far less attention to the interrelationship of regional economic and cultural developments that transcend the border, many have dealt specifically with various parts thereof, some large and some small. To study the Great Lakes region comprehensively over the centuries, fluid and hard to define as that region is, involves challenge in conceptualization, in mastery of relevant literature, and in basic research. The results of the work of the four authors--three historians and one geographer--presented in Permeable Border offer readers an impressive historical overview of the Great Lakes region and suggest future directions for study. The book is divided into seven units, each focusing on segment of the whole and presenting different perspective on the subject. In the initial chapter, historian Bukowczyk explains the authors' perception of border as an artificial and permeable line and a principal mechanism for articulating and implementing immigration, economic development, and nation-building policies while it has become, on symbolic level, the embodiment of national identity and sovereignty (3). Here he sets forth the goal of the book as an attempt to correct deficiency in current studies of American-Canadian history--namely, consideration of the interrelated nature of American and Canadian economic development in the Great Lakes region. Here the authors deny intention of arguing for Canadian-American political merger or any other such arrangement that would compromise Canadian (or American) sovereignty, unity, or cultural integrity (9). In the two following chapters, Bukowczyk examines the roles of trade, wars, migration, transportation, and capital during the years 1650-1890 in the Great Lakes basin as major ingredients in the development of transnational region. The intricately woven account of the period 1660-1815 relates the interaction between the Native Peoples, the French, the British, and the young United States from the perspective of its impact on the Great Lakes region. In the process the French bow out and the Native Peoples are irreparably weakened by war, disease, and alcohol. British North America and the young United States are left as the principal contenders seeking to dominate the region's natural resources. Whose transnational region was it? (28). That was the question in 1815. Bukowczyk's treatment of the period 1815-1890 traces the impact of the transportation revolution--canal, railroad, and road building--in the two nations, all three major influences on economic development. …

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)0.000
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 score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207