MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203070141 · doi:10.1353/hgo.2020.0006

Peter Fidler: From York Factory to the Rocky Mountains ed. by Barbara Belyea

2020· article· en· W3203070141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Briwa

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical geography · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt historyContext (archaeology)HistoryArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Peter Fidler: From York Factory to the Rocky Mountains ed. by Barbara Belyea Robert M. Briwa Peter Fidler: From York Factory to the Rocky Mountains. Barbara Belyea, ed. Louisville: University Press of Colorado, 2020. Pp. vii+359, sketches, maps, notes, index. $52.00, hardcover, ISBN 978-1-64642-015-5. Hudson Bay Company (hereafter HBC) surveyor Peter Fidler (1769–1822) is one of the more obscure figures of the Canadian fur trade. In Peter Fidler: From York Factory to the Rocky Mountains, Barbara Belyea ensures his greater prominence through masterfully editing two of Fidler's journals ("From York Factory to Buckingham House" and "From Buckingham House to the Rocky Mountains"), which he wrote over a nine-month period traveling the Canadian interior between 1792 and 1793. This volume is an admirable addition to any North American [End Page 138] historical geographer's bookshelf, for the text is a useful primer in understanding not only Peter Fidler's journeys but also the Hudson Bay Company's historical development, its literary practices, and its contributions to Canadian geographical knowledge. Belyea demonstrates how editors play essential roles in making primary sources legible to lay audiences. Her original contributions include an introductory chapter titled "Peter Fidler in Context" and extensive endnotes. I recommend that readers who are unfamiliar with the Hudson Bay Company (or those encountering Fidler for the first time) read these sections prior to diving into the journals, as Belyea provides essential contextual information. These sections outline Fidler's life, explain his obscurity among HBC historians, and provide necessary historical and geographical contexts to his journals. Moreover, Belyea demonstrates how HBC documents like Fidler's journals reflect a conservative literary culture that was developed to efficiently conduct business transactions across a geographically far-flung social network that had both North American and European participants. To modern eyes more accustomed to reading explorers' accounts published for general audiences, Fidler's journals are a challenging read—yet Belyea serves as an exemplary guide to the unfamiliar world of an eighteenth-century surveyor navigating vast tracts of the Canadian interior. Peter Fidler was a meticulous chronicler. His journals exhibit all the qualities required of an HBC surveyor. Fidler's daily entries are written in a form of shorthand akin to a captain's log. The journals' terse narrative structure—employing dashes instead of punctuation to indicate distinct ideas or temporal breaks—reflect wider writing practices adopted by literate HBC employees, who were required to produce standardized manuscript forms. Standardized lists, letters, journals, and maps were common HBC business documents. They often lost their utilitarian structure, however, when folded into memoirs by those who sought to profit off their HBC experiences by selling them to armchair geographers. In contrast, the two journals reproduced in this volume are the unedited entries of a skilled HBC employee in the field, designed for field navigation and use. Devoid of literary flourishes or sentiment, they document key events as perceived by someone accustomed to surveying, hard travel, and interacting with unfamiliar cultures for extended periods. Belyea's choice to reproduce Fidler's field notes in their original [End Page 139] structure is a key strength of the volume. Fidler seamlessly transitions between prose narrative, survey measurements, and sketched maps. Belyea chose to reproduce the latter as photocopies, inserting them wherever they appeared in the journals in their relative positions. Often these sketch maps leave Fidler's script legible, though others' small size—sometimes less than a sixteenth of a page—leave readers squinting at Fidler's annotations in vain. I found that the maps' positions on the page visually broke up Fidler's prose and sometimes left me disoriented, at least until I identified the correct narrative thread to pick up reading again (53). At other times, I wished for editorial annotations or captions for the more obscure sketches. Occasional disorientations aside, I applaud Belyea's decision to leave these elements of Fidler's journals untouched, because she rightly notes that to do so retains a sense of "how Fidler and other fur-trade writers perceived and mentally organized events and situations" (28). An important contribution of this volume is its ability to reflect how Euro-American geographical...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1410.082

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical geographySame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207