Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mid-nineteenth century Ontario was a time of profound and rapid change.We know, for example, that the population grew from 450,000 in 1841 to 952,000 in 1851; we know that temperance societies were proliferating during the 18405; and it is documented that the quantities of most products shipped into the United States from primarily Ontario sources between 1840 and 1849 increased massively, quite a number of them by more than a thousandfold.What is not so clear is where the striking changes were occurring.How did the appearance of settlement differ from place to place?What were the channels of the land-seeking movement?How did the society function on the land?These questions point to what might be called the historical where.This is the orientation of historical geography, and of this inquiry.Making Ontario was one of the great dramas of the occupation of the New World, and as with all dramas it had a setting, in this case a natural environment free of substantial human modifications.The interaction of settling and environment raises further vital questions: what was the full gamut of geographical change wrought from the 17805 to 1853; and under what ethic did the settlers interact with nature?When Robert Leslie Jones in his classic 1946 work, The History of Agriculture in Ontario, called the American-born settlers of early Ontario "land-butchers," he was thinking of their carelessness as farmers, their untidy fields, their ignorance of manure as field dressing.Today we might apply the term differently -these settlers, even the tidy, progressive farmer, were ecological revolutionaries who changed the face of the earth.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.220 | 0.073 |
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".