A historical perspective on nature: Insights from environmental philosophy and the construction of the Erie and Rideau Canals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We contribute to the accounting history and canal literature and the growing interest in environmental reporting by examining the philosophical approaches evident in the accountability documents of two historical canal projects, the Erie and Rideau Canals. We examine official records of the construction of these canals to identify sentences containing terms related to the environment and classify each sentence according to the environmental philosophy reflected. Of the three main streams of environmental ethics, we find evidence of both virtue ethics and utilitarian philosophical perspectives in the accounts, although the utilitarian perspective dominates. There is only sparse evidence of a deontological approach. We find differences in the ethical themes focused on each canal consistent with the degree of settlement nearby. We also find evidence of some common themes for both canals when analysed by the key phase of their planning and construction activities. We also consider the implications of these findings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it