Landscapes of memory: heritage place and historic sites in prairie Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In Landscapes of Memory: Heritage Place and Historic Sites in Prairie Canada I explore concepts of heritage, place, and memory in the prairie west, examining how heritage value is established, how commemoration reflects social and cultural perspectives and how and why interpretation can change over time. I illustrate the process by which the social construction of heritage value can be part of an “authorized” identity that conforms to acceptable, authoritative, and official perceptions of historical significance. My major argument is that “official” historic sites in prairie Canada – and most importantly their interpretation – are examples of authorized spaces that relate to national and nation-building goals. They are frequently examples of an imagined past, or a heritage defined by modern perceptions often with landscapes that become fashioned as aestheticized space or pleasing landscapes that have become idealized to fit with visitor expectations. I also argue that local political and cultural forces have come to influence the way historic place is understood. I suggest that it is the tension between federal goals and the aims of the local that have resulted in changing and evolving interpretations. This study looks at how our view of the past constructs the heritage of place and community that relate the past to the present. I focus upon how the significance of place is often contested and how, for instance, Indigenous perceptions often challenge conventional views of the past. I discuss the process of commemoration of some critical twentieth century themes in prairie history while referencing examples of recognized heritage places in Western Canada, including cultural topographies, Indigenous landscapes, community-recognized built heritage, and national historic sites in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. More broadly, I look at questions such as who decides what is heritage, who claims authority and why, and how are perceptions of place memory effectively reproduced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".