MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028865183

"In the greatest abundance": life, governance and discourses of conservation in nineteenth-century Canada

2001· dissertation· en· W7028865183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnvironmental Science and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleaCorporate governancePoliticsImmigrationColonialismNationalismNarrativeRefugee
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis investigates the "discourse of conservation" as it is both articulated and critiqued in three texts written by women in the nineteenth century. 'A Plea for Emigration; Or, Notes of Canada West' (1852), written by Mary Ann Shadd and addressed to a Black American audience, critiques romanticized discourses of nationalism and freedom, and reconfigures characterizations of Black emigrant populations in the period from destitute, nai?ve refugees to keen critical thinkers, successful merchants, and agents of national security. 'Burlington Bay Beach and Heights in History', an historical pamphlet written by Mary Rose Holden of the Onondaga Nation and published by the Niagara Historical Society in 1897, conceptualizes European history in a First-Nations frame--one that structurally contains the European presence within the borders of a formerly established, and presently enduring, Six Nations community. Her revisionist history situates First Nations people as valuable demonstraters of successful government. Catharine Parr Traill's 'Stories of the Canadian Forest, Or, Little Mary and her Nurse', published in 1856, teaches (and implicitly questions) the complex social stratification of colonial Canada in various conversations between a nurse and her upper-class charge. These three texts provide a significant comparative example of how the discourses of conservation can be considered a locus for linguistic structures that work to cultivate access, even for disenfranchised individuals, to self-determination, political participation, and governance over land use.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0780.052
Scholarly communication0.0160.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicEnvironmental Science and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207