MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161995439 · doi:10.3138/topia-2025-0005

Settler Trees: Rooted Entanglements in the Wabanaki Forest

2025· article· en· W7161995439 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Maren Savarese Knopf

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismIndigenousFrontierNarrativeSettlement (finance)Ecocriticism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Settler society maintains a deep, yet often unacknowledged, reliance on storytelling. These stories conscript colonial narratives that shape understandings of the more-than-human world and mythologize settler figures. As such, stories about Johnny Appleseed and The Giving Tree have concealed the destruction and extraction embedded within settler-environment relationships and force the land and more-than human beings into colonial narratives. While settler figures like Johnny Appleseed are romanticized, John Chapman’s role in seeding the new frontier with apple orchards served to facilitate colonial settlement and Indigenous land dispossession. In turn, this process has implicated more-than-human apple trees into colonial settlement. This paper draws from the work of Indigenous scholars and post-colonial theory to unpack the complex agential capacity of more-than-humans and offers an intervention into who and how settler colonialism is performed. In doing so, the paper explores the role non-native species, like apple trees, in the settlement of the Wabanaki forest, wherein trees are conceptualized as active witnesses to ongoing colonial violence and ecological destruction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207