Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of Canadian parks systems, within the realm of environmental history, has been deeply affected by contemporary social, environmental, and political beliefs. The rhetoric of human domination over nature and the inherent separation of the two was entrenched throughout historical works on Canadian parks in the early to mid- twentieth century. The liberalization of history within the past forty years has served to shift this trend. The inclusion of scientific knowledge in historical research, the limitation of past prejudices and biases concerning nature and humanity, and the questioning of political policies affecting nature have aided in the growth of a body of historical research and interpretation that questions past perceptions of the natural. The historiographical exploration of parks history offers researchers an exciting opportunity to identify historical factors impacting the practice of environmental history while also discerning and encouraging future trends in environmental history. Using recent historical publications on Canadian parks history as examples, this paper seeks to both uncover the historical factors impacting past historical practice and acknowledge the major philosophical and practical shifts in historical practice that have fostered an exciting new body of work in environmental history. In questioning what it means to be human, what it means to be Canadian, and what the relationship between humanity and nature is and can be, increasingly nuanced historical work offers readers and historians new realms of exploration – both philosophically and practically.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".