The "Last Resort of the Lumberman": Perceptions of British Columbia's coastal forests, 1849--1914.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historiography on the origins of British Columbia's forest industry seems more or less to assume that its coastal forests were constant, static phenomena independent of society or even history. A small handful of studies that have examined the socially constructed nature of forests paint an ambiguous and contradictory picture. Scholars have argued that the province's forests were perceived either positively, or negatively, or having little value to the first settlers. One scholar has even argued that they were perceived as virginal wilderness. More importantly, none has examined the relationship between forest perceptions and provincial government policy. The Last Resort of the Lumbermen argues that many Euro-British Columbians perceived the province's coastal forests ambiguously: on the one hand, they were vast, extensive, and dense, consisting of the largest and finest trees--a variable and inexhaustible source of wealth for the province--yet on the other hand they were a limited resource requiring protection. These perceptions played a significant role in the province's Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and Forestry and the subsequent 1912 Forest Act. --Leaf ii.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".