The Practice of History Shared across Differences: Needs, Technologies, and Ways of Knowing in the Megaprojects New Media Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, the three authors each discuss how the theme of sharing authority has emerged in their joint work on the Megaprojects New Media project. In part 1, Joy Parr recounts the discussions, dealings, acts of reciprocity, and public advocacy that have characterized her diverse and challenging encounters with communities affected by megaprojects. In part 2, Jessica Van Horssen discusses the particular case of Val Morton, a displaced rancher whose discontinued participation in the project rendered his considerable contributions to it, particularly an archive of documents, a challenge to notions of historical authority. In part 3, Jon van der Veen discusses how new media approaches to sharing such documents can take the form of a middle ground between a narrative and a database, productively drawing on the benefits and drawbacks of each to help others to tell stories with those documents. The authors conclude that it is this sharing of time, information, materials, claims, trust, and finally, public statements between different parties that accounts for the challenges inherent in sharing authority.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".