Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the encounter of humans and wild animals in prairie Canada touches in many ways on social, cultural, economic, and political life.And since historians are inevitably shaped by their times, I have grappled in writing this history with the spirit of my own age, which is so different in some ways -but so similar in others -to those dealt with in this book.Attitudes familiar to many people in 1900 about managing natural resources such as wildlife for economic gain or to meet social needs remain.And some contemporary attitudes about human responsibility for wild animals and the natural environment or about the character and lives of wild animals would not seem strange to some people a century ago.Yet, we also now live in a world with different priorities and expectations about the human encounter with wild animals.Such things as animal rights, the dominance of the human species in nature, and the relationship among different species are now thought about in very different terms.And while worrying about the health of natural systems and the survival of certain species has a venerable pedigree, it is now conjoined with a growing belief that an important and irreversible divide has been, or is about to be crossed.Growing global environmental changes, from escalating extinction of wild species (and many domestic ones) to heightened levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, suggest to some observers that the human impact on the planet has become part of geological time and that we have left the Holocene and are now living in what some are calling the Anthropocene.But other things endure, notably the assistance of colleagues and friends that a historian enjoys when writing about a topic of such scope.I have benefited over the years from the knowledge and insight of many, especially
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.430 | 0.251 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".