Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landscape citizenship in Canada is neither abstract nor uncomplicated. The country is famous for welcoming immigrants and refugees, but its settler colonial culture has disenfranchised and dispossessed the Indigenous peoples who have been here since time immemorial. So what does it mean to belong here? This chapter documents a conversation about landscape citizenship among three Canadians who met because of their attachment to the landscapes of Toronto. James Bird, a carpenter, cabinetmaker, and architecture student, belongs to the Nēhiyawak and Dënesųłiné Nations and is affiliated with the Northwest Territory Metis Nation. Ange Loft is an interdisciplinary performing artist and initiator from Kahnawake Kanienkehaka Territory. Jane Wolff is a cultural landscape scholar who came to Canada from the United States. Their discussion gave rise to wide-ranging questions, subjects, and insights about the importance of rootedness; the excitement of movement; the problem of exclusion; the need for ritual and ceremony; the presence of the sacred; the liveliness of language; the knowledge in names; and the power of kindness and care to engender meaningful relationships among people and with places.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.287 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".