Deforestation and Opposition to Scientific Forest Management in 19th Century Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States: Lessons for the Climate Change Debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 19th century saw the rapid cutover of native forests in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Due to concerns about deforestation, there arose a nascent conservation movement, which publicised the adverse environmental effects of the cutover, fire, wasteful logging practices, and the importance of sustainable forestry practices. Through an examination of the arguments opposing scientific forestry management and conservation, this article discusses how conservation and economic development were understood and changed in the Anglo-American political economy of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The article argues that these 19th-century debates echo opposition to climate mitigation policy today. It concludes that climate mitigation proponents must reconceptualise the notion of public interest and create a more cohesive narrative regarding the desirability of climate mitigation policies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".