Where the Scientists Roam: Ecology, Management and Bison in Northern Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores the historical role that scientists have played in the debates over bison management in Wood Buffalo National Park. It questions the philosophical assumption that science is inherently tied to the control and management of nature by state and economic actors. The paper closely examines four distinct periods in the history of wildlife science in the park to argue that zoologists, ecologists and veterinarians have played diverse and contradictory roles in the debates over northern bison management. Though the historical record reveals many examples of scientists who accepted an intensive managerial approach to bison conservation, many other wildlife scientists working in Wood Buffalo National Park have, in fact, resisted the utilitarian and productionist emphasis that has been promoted by administrators working within the Canadian government. The paper concludes that the practice of wildlife ecology in Wood Buffalo Park has been a diverse and heterogeneous endeavour reflecting different disciplinary, institutional and ideological divisions within the field,
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it