Reconciliation & Indigenous Inclusion In Ontario's Wilderness: An Analysis of Recreational Space in Temagami - n'Daki Menan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Temagami wilderness that we know today is the result of both a cultural and natural phenomenon; the result of a struggle over meaning, identity and land. This paper explores how histories and cultures are reflected in the physical and social landscape of recreational space in Ontario. The primary research question surrounds who has access to Temagami and whose voices are represented. The focus is largely on First Nations visibility and inclusion in Temagami, navigating land use tensions between recreational users, resource extraction, and the Teme-Augama Anishnabai. Merging discourse on wilderness as Canadian identity, settler colonialism, and decolonization, this paper explores the contested nature of the wilderness and identifies opportunities for coexistence and a shared future of mutual respect. This research will contribute to our understanding of cottage country - a unique Ontario identity - reflecting on how First Nations’ identity and values can be represented equally alongside settler society. The goal of this work is to contribute to the discussion on opportunities for decolonization of our wilderness landscapes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".