MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387846215 · doi:10.1163/2208522x-bja10044

Animals, Affect and Annihilation: Campaigns against Canids in Postwar Canada

2023· article· en· W4387846215 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Rutherford, Victoria Shea, Chris Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenueEmotions History Culture Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Value (mathematics)ColonialismWildnessCriminologyAestheticsHistoryEthnologySocial psychologySociologyPsychologyArtBiologyArchaeologyEcologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This essay suggests that culling campaigns against canids in postwar Canada have striking affective dimensions. Drawing on examples of canid management in the 1950s and 60s from Nunavik, Alberta, and Ontario, we contend that the killing of supposedly rabid dogs and wild canids was predominantly about affective excess and emotional management. The wildness of these animals was perceived to lead to excessive nonhuman affectivity, which was seemingly exacerbated by rabies. Human encounters with these animals were characterised by excessive affective responses, a result of long-standing fears of rabies, anxieties about northernness and assertions of ‘civilisation’ in the context of settler colonialism. This fear was then channelled into round ups and killings of canids. The killing was what Monique Scheer calls an ‘emotional practice’ designed to soothe anxieties, to cleanse and to civilise. Drawing on archival and other documentary sources, we aim to show the value in exploring more fully the intersections between affect and animal histories.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmotions History Culture SocietySame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207