MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996162865

From Reclamation to Conservation: A History of Settler Place-Making in Burns Bog, British Columbia

2019· other· en· W6996162865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueYorkSpace (York University) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBogWetlandPeatLand reclamationPeriod (music)ColonialismArable landEnvironmental history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wetlands are, in the Canadian settler imaginary, ambiguous spaces that are neither strictly landmasses nor only bodies of water. This paper explores how Canadian settler-colonialism has incorporated wetlands into systems of land ownership and control by tracing the history a specific wetland, a peat bog known as Burns Bog since the 1930s in the area settlers call Delta, British Columbia. Given its presence as one of the largest wetlands in the region, settlers failed to drain the bog in its entirety. As a result, the bog persisted throughout the history of settlers’ presence on the west coast and has been subjected to waves of settler approaches, making it an ideal case study to consider how ongoing settler-colonialism has shaped, and continues to shape, wetlands. Previous historical works on wetlands in Canada and the United States have documented how early settlers, through to roughly the mid-twentieth century, worked to “reclaim” wetlands and transform them into arable land. However, these accounts have often neglected to continue their analysis of settler-colonialism beyond this period and have, as a result, treated settlers’ more contemporary views of wetlands -- as ecologically valuable ecosystems that need to be conserved or restored -- as a break in colonial dynamics. This research intervenes in this existing body of work by treating shifting practices towards wetlands as successive stages in efforts to incorporate wetlands into settler-colonial logics. I argue that these different practices need to be interrogated for how they both rely on similar logics, frameworks, and approaches to the nonhuman, and for how they further the settler-colonial project of suppressing Indigenous voices, histories, and relations to land. The paper draws upon Indigenous studies, queer ecology, and posthumanism to develop a more theoretically robust framework through which to approach the history of Burns Bog. I use a collection of archival and secondary materials—particularly early ethnographies of the region— to trace Indigenous and settler relations to the bog. In chapter 1, I present a framework that pays particular attention to settler practices and conceptions of land, biopolitical capitalist subsumption of the nonhuman, and methods of thinking with and through water. In chapter 2, I trace the bog’s history from its formation through to the 1920s, including Indigenous peoples’ relations to the bog and early settler efforts to reclaim the bog. Chapter 3 explores the rise of different settler practices in the bog from the 1930s to the 1980s, especially peat extraction, cranberry farming, and the use of the bog as a landfill. Chapter 4 presents the rise in scientific and conservation approaches to Burns Bog, highlighting how they provide a means for making the bog more legible and enabling more extensive settler direction of nonhuman beings within the bog as well as the resurgence of Indigenous claims to the bog. I argue that by viewing wetlands as ongoing and overlapping collections of material and narrative practices, we can see how contemporary conservation politics often function as an extension of settler domination of land.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYorkSpace (York University)French-language works237,207