MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241112340 · doi:10.24124/2011/bpgub755

"Every drop of water will be desired": The Lake Minnewanka and Spray Lakes controversies in Rocky Mountains National Park, 1912--1931.

2011· dissertation· en· W4241112340 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Vogt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkGeographyNatural (archaeology)Resource (disambiguation)Natural resourceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionEcologyArchaeologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of the national park as an area where human enjoyment of natural scenery took precedence over, and was incompatible with natural resource development was constructed in Canada between 1907 and 1931. During this time period, Canada's National Parks Branch went from building its own dam on Lake Minnewanka, in Rocky Mountains National Park (later Banff National Park), to vigorously opposing the construction of new dams on that and other park lakes. The emerging parks and conservation movements ultimately diverged over the proposed development of the Spray Lakes and Lake Minnewanka between 1922 and 1931. The result -- a recognition that human enjoyment of national parks was incompatible with resource development, but that development projects could take precedence over park land -- was a compromise which reflected the divergence between these two branches of the Canadian environmental movement. --P. 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0320.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Environmental and Regional History→French-language works237,207→