MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534687879 · doi:10.1111/cag.12316

Gateways, inland seas, or boundary waters? Historical conceptions of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River since the 19th century

2016· article· en· W2534687879 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michèle Dagenais, Ken Cruikshank

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsPoliticsGateway (web page)Boundary (topology)Late 19th centuryHistoryEnvironmental historyGeographyEnvironmental ethicsArchaeologyPolitical scienceEconomic historyLawPeriod (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Messages Since the late 19th century, historians, geographers, and other scholars have conceived of the St. Lawrence River as a gateway that provided the basis for an east‐west transcontinental nation. Although the Great Lakes initially were incorporated into the national histories of the United States and Canada, increasingly they came to represent boundary waters that transcended political borders. Environmental issues encouraged a few writers to think more about how the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence might be thought about together, as sharing waters and a history.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.043
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.152 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207