MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026186204 · doi:10.1177/1748048510386745

Picturing environmental risk: The Canadian oil sands and the National Geographic

2011· article· en· W2026186204 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Communication Gazette · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Geographic Society
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)Environmental communicationSublimeOil sandsVisual communicationRisk communicationPublic opinionEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceGeographyBusinessAestheticsAdvertisingEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)ArchaeologyLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Geographic Magazine photographic essay on the Canadian oil sands presents an excellent case study of how environmental risk is communicated visually. The images express an inherent tension between nature-as-sublime and nature-as-resource, and mobilize various discourses related to environmental degradation and resource management. Through a specifically visual approach to the communication of risk, this article provides theoretical insight into how risk is perceived differently within various social contexts and concludes that the visual communication of risk may not substantially raise levels of public engagement and initiative.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.086 · 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