Railways and borderland spaces: The Canada–US case
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transportation has played a decisive role in transforming the economic and social geography of both the United States and Canada and in this context, railways have been prominent. Their extension in both the American and Canadian hinterlands was designed to organize territory, increase the number of settlements, support resource exploitation, and facilitate the development of regional and national markets. While geopolitical protectionism played a somewhat more prominent role in the development of railways in Canada than the United States, rail expansion in both countries was not circumscribed by the international boundary. In fact, in many cases the border actually transcended such development. In other words, the Canada–United States border has historically presented both limitations and opportunities to railway interests. This paper argues that while the basic alignment of borderland rail networks was established during the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, the nodal structure, hub status, and corridor alignments of railways since the 1930s have changed drastically. It also contends that because such networks responded to changes in technologies, regional development, and market forces, they played different roles in configuring the various regions of the Canadian‐American borderlands.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it