MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Battlefield to Baseball Diamond: The Niagara Parks Commission and Queenston Heights Park

2014· article· en· W2536266353 on OpenAlexaff
Elaine Young

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon Journal of Canadian Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionRecreationPicnicBattlefieldBattleWildernessPopularityWorld War IISpanish Civil WarArchaeologyGeographyHistoryLawPolitical scienceAncient historyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between the War of 1812’s end and the late 1920s Queenston Heights was redefined from being primarily a place of memory associated with the War of 1812 to being for the most part a place of recreation. The site of a significant War of 1812 battle, until the late nineteenth century it drew growing numbers of tourists, many of whom wanted to feel closer to its wartime past. Beginning in the late nineteenth century the site’s popularity for recreation increased, and by the 1920s Queenston Heights Park was a destination where thousands of people went to enjoy recreational activities such as picnics and sports. The Niagara Parks Commission, which owned the site from 1895, facilitated this transformation. The Commission saw Queenston Heights more as a park than a historic site and worked to create a recreational space that would draw tourists and increase revenue. By the 1920s the park featured attractions such as playing fields, picnic shelters, tennis courts, a restaurant, and a souvenir stand. There was little opposition to these changes, which at times jeopardized the historic landscape. Although Queenston Heights’ commemorative meanings were no longer closely associated with its battlefield landscape, these meanings were increasingly invested in the imposing Brock Monument. This allowed the Commission’s development of the battlefield to continue unabated, and under the Commission the landscape of the former battlefield became increasingly distanced from its wartime past.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLondon Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207