MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2785131053

The Paradise Syndrome: Environment, Boosters and Ranching along the Montana/Alberta Borderlands

2017· dissertation· en· W2785131053 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
M. C. L. Todd

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsParadiseGeographyForestryHistoryArt history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history of cattle ranching on the Great Plains combines climate, grasslands, water, people and animals. Unfortunately, it also includes environmental missteps and catastrophes which has led to numerous negative histories that end on an environmental low-point. The resulting studies tend to blame rancher’s greed for damaging their environment, as opposed to finding an alternative explanation for their actions. Ranching histories, therefore, often follow a decline framework. The overarching message for these types of histories is that human interaction with the natural world is inherently negative. In short, historians have not been overly kind to cattle ranchers. This study complicates that history by examining why ranchers made the mistakes that they did and how they tried to correct them. It does not end on the environmental low point for the cattle industry but looks past it to consider what, if anything, was done to improve ranching methods. The discussion considers how ranching in Alberta and Montana started and why ranchers operated the way that they did. It argues that ranchers in both places started their operations with a fundamentally flawed understanding of the environment because the climate, grasslands and economic potential of the area had been a favorite topic for boosters during the 1870-1880s. What resulted was the importation of thousands of cattle and inappropriate ranching methods. After several years of temporary equilibrium in 1886/1887 a drought and hard winter occurred. By spring it was realized that thousands of cattle had frozen or starved to death where they stood. However, the disaster was not the end of the cattle industry in either Montana or Alberta. Ranchers on both sides of the border tried (often successfully) to adapt to their environment in order to continue in their industry. It is the recognition of a flawed understanding of the environment and then trying to adapt to it that forms the backbone of this work. This study is also a bioregional history of the nineteenth century Montana and Alberta borderlands. As such, it examines how people and governments responded to an environment and climate misrepresented by booster literature and government policy. The work itself is bioregional, yet also deals with broader ideas of nation building, borderland economics, the concept of natural disaster, and indigenous displacement.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Environmental and Regional History→French-language works237,207→