“Amongst the howlings of wild beasts”: British travel writers and wild animal encounters in early America
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
Animals, despite attracting relatively little scholarly attention in the field of travel literature studies, occupied a central place in British travelogues describing North America during the long eighteenth century. Travellers associated “wild beasts” with an idea of wilderness, looking to animals to understand New World environments and engage in natural philosophy. Yet they also found that wild animals were not so readily controlled; rather than passive objects, animals were their own historical agents. Wild beasts threatened travellers in the woods and broke down notions of anthropocentricism, frustrated attempts to classify them, and, most alarmingly, refused to retreat from civilisation’s advance, raising questions as to what extent colonialism could remake America. Taking a selection of contemporary British travelogues and drawing upon the literature of the animal turn, this paper argues that travel accounts provide a fruitful way to explore human-animal interactions, as well as the role played by animals in colonisation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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