MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241651495 · doi:10.3138/chr.92.3.399

An Environmental History of Progress: Damming the Peace and Columbia Rivers

2011· article· en· W4241651495 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tina Loo, Meg Stanley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernityModernism (music)Interpretation (philosophy)HistoryCivil engineeringEngineeringSociologyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This paper explores the spurt of dam-building in British Columbia from the 1960s to the 1980s, offering a different interpretation of high modernism and the changes it caused. It does so by focusing on the agents of high modernity: the engineers, geologists, and construction workers who designed, built, and drove the machinery of progress. By taking the synoptic seriously, we make three related arguments. First, dam-building was characterized by an intense engagement with place that generated a particular kind of knowledge, something we call ‘high modernist local knowledge.’ Second, the environmental and social changes that ensued from dam-building were a result of the presence, not the absence, of this local knowledge. Moreover, and finally, those changes were more than destructive. Big dams did not just destroy locales, they displaced and globalized them, and in so doing created new ones.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.165 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207