MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033665926

Representing nature in Elizabeth Posthuma Simcoe’s Diary: an examination of Toronto’s colonial past (Canada)

2012· article· en· W7033665926 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismReading (process)Race (biology)White (mutation)Order (exchange)Government (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article the author examines how gender, class, and race are important factors in the construction of historical discourses of nature. Using a close reading of the diary of a government official’s wife at the turn of the nineteenth century, three themes of colonialism appear. The contradictions of rationalizing the landscape through cartography, counting nature using botany and\nnatural history, and romanticizing the landscape through painting and nature writing, highlight how the colonial project was a complex weave of ideas about nature, as commodity, scientific fact, and moral instruction. By exploring the diverse media in Elizabeth Posthuma Simcoe’s Diary – maps, paintings, and writings – a nuanced picture of an upper-class, white woman’s\nrole in the Upper Canadian colonial project is drawn in relief. The article explores the ways that historic discourses of nature remain in cities and are easily (and often uncritically) incorporated in current day geographies. The author argues that the colonial past must be thoroughly interrogated in order to understand how discourses of nature have been constructed to serve certain interests, disguise the processes of colonialism, and reinforce certain ideas about gender and nature in the present.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.015
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)French-language works237,207