Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evoking Turtle Island as a metaphor for North America calls attention to how ecological diversity and connectedness are intertwined with culture, social metabolism, and power relations on the continent. The environmental provisions of NAFTA, largely an afterthought and mostly unenforceable, never gave life to the integrated wholeness of Turtle Island. Yet, they became a blueprint for subsequent trade agreements in the Americas and beyond, locking in weak mechanisms for responding to the environmental consequences of accelerated trade among growth-insistent capitalist economies and firmly establishing the environment as a low priority in the trade world. In renegotiating NAFTA, Canada, Mexico, and the United States did little to harness the desire for enhanced trade to address looming socio-ecological crises, choosing instead to add nonbinding language about a scattering of environmental issues, while also giving opponents of stronger environmental protections new tools to impede them. NAFTA's unfulfilled goal to seek upward harmonization of environmental protections was removed, and climate change is conspicuously absent. Notions of kinship, respect, responsibility, and reciprocity that many Indigenous cultures accord to the human relationship to Earth are barely discernible in the new arena for North American trade. The new NAFTA, more than ever, treats North America as a territory for exploitation and profit-making, not a territory of life that must be honored and allowed to flourish for the benefit of future generations of North Americans – human and nonhuman. An alternative vision of North American integration would see Turtle Island as a network of place-based territories of life, with a value shift toward mutually enhancing human–Earth relationships and a solid commitment to socio-ecological restoration at the core.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".