‘Shell games’, displacement and the reordering of boreal landscapes in <scp>A</scp>lberta, <scp>C</scp>anada
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
Terrestrial conservation offsets have become a leading solution to the ecological consequences of A lberta's oil sands boom. The broad‐based support for terrestrial offsets in the province is representative of a larger global trend toward the rescaling of environmental governance and greater use of market‐based conservation models. A well‐developed critical literature now documents some of the overarching logics and material implications of these ‘neoliberal’ approaches to conservation. Much of this scholarship has drawn on M arxian notions of accumulation by dispossession to raise concern that the use of market‐based approaches serves to widen dispossession through increased enclosure and privatisation of both nonhuman nature and political discourse on issues of environment. While in many instances these concerns are justified, the mechanisms through which market‐based conservation channels benefits to powerful societal actors may be more complicated than often assumed. Drawing from recent empirical research on attempts to establish markets in terrestrial conservation offsets in A lberta, C anada, this paper complicates some of the dominant narratives of privatisation associated with market‐based conservation initiatives. Market‐based conservation may, in some instances, be employed to expand a functionally public domain as a means of lubricating private wealth generation, suggesting the need for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between market‐based conservation, dispossession and accumulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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