Bibliographic record
Abstract
An interrogation of the links between environmental and Canadian studies in recent years has moved both fields in important directions. Specifically, it has offered a more robust consideration of historicity and specificity in nature/culture entanglements, a querying of how nature and nation have shaped one another, and a thorough understanding of the idea of wilderness as a concept freighted with race, gender, class, and colonial histories. In the spirit of this interrogation, this essay suggests that a potentially fruitful new avenue of research lies in a consideration of the of the animal. Drawing from examples of the management of wolves in Canada, the author contends that a consideration of animals, through a range of biopolitical registers, opens up a series of new and interesting questions about both nature and nation that provide a productive research agenda for both (inter)disciplines. Abstract: L'analyse des liens entre les etudes canadiennes et environnementales qui a eu lieu au cours des dernieres annees a propulse ces deux disciplines dans des directions insoupconnees. Plus particulierement, elle a entraine une meilleure reconnaissance de l'historicite et de la specificite des debats nature/culture, un besoin de savoir comment la nature a contribue a former la nation et vice-versa, et une comprehension approfondie du concept de milieu sauvage associe a la race, au sexe, a la classe et a l'histoire coloniale. Compte tenu de cette interrogation, le present article suggere qu'une orientation de la recherche vers la « question de l'animal » pourrait produire des resultats interessants. En s'inspirant d'exemples de la gestion des loups au Canada, l'auteure allegue que le fait de tenir compte des animaux, dans une gamme de registres biopolitiques, suscite une nouvelle serie de questions interessantes sur la nature et la nation qui fournissent un cadre de recherche productif pour les deux (inter)disciplines.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".