A Historical and Archaeological Study of the Nineteenth Century Hudson's Bay Company Garden at Fort Vancouver: Focusing on Archaeological Field Methods and Microbotanical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC), a British fur-trading enterprise, created a large garden at Fort Vancouver, now in southwest Washington, in the early- to mid-19th century. This fort was the administrative headquarters for the HBC's activities in western North America. Archaeological investigations were conducted at this site in 2005 and 2006 in order to better understand the role of this large space, which seems incongruous in terms of resources required, to the profit motive of the HBC. Questions about the landscape characteristics, and comments by 19th century visitors to the site provided the impetus for theoretical research of gardens as representations of societal power, and, on a mid-range level, the efficacy of certain archaeological methods in researching this type of space. Documentary research related to the history of the HBC Garden was also conducted, including previous archaeology completed at the site. The results of these lines of inquiry are presented, providing insight as to the diverse roles this Garden fulfilled in the survival of the HBC in the region - as a commercial enterprise, as a microcosm of western societal practice, and in the health of its employees.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".