Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a lively and admirable prose, Tina Loo describes the awakening of sensitivity towards wildlife conservation in Canada from the end of the 19 th Century up to the 1970s.Through her examination of the way management and preservation of nature shifted from the "local" to the "national" level during this period, she identifies the major actors behind this movement and the values driving their discourse.The reading of States of Nature exposes clearly and in all their complexity the motivations and beliefs of the various participants.The increasing regulation of the state over the preservation of the species incited reactions from sports hunters, country people, workers and members of the First Nations, besides modifying the role of biologists, ecological organisations, associations and firms.With case studies carefully chosen, very well documented and chronologically presented, the author has shown how concrete experiences and representations of nature intertwined and occasionally opposed each other.Be they resources to manage, images of a pristine world to preserve, places for integrating human and wild life, nature and fauna took various faces throughout the years and were sometimes invested with hard to reconcile values.With remarkable skill, Tina Loo has managed to combine theoretical subtleties, profoundness of argumentation, and readability.Thanks to its style and to its disturbing topicality, her book will reach both a wide readership as well as historians concerned with rigor and innovative interpretation.States of Nature already stands out as a must in environmental history and comes out as the most significant contribution of the 2006 crop in Canadian history.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.680 | 0.482 |
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".