MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093154905 · doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00325

Moving Mountains: Community and Resistance in the Isle of Harris, Scotland, and Cape Breton, Canada

2003· article· en· W2093154905 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alison MacKenzie, Simon Dalby

Bibliographic record

VenueAntipode · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance (ecology)CapePoliticsNarrativeIdentity (music)SociologySustainabilityEthnologyEnvironmental ethicsAnthropologyGender studiesArchaeologyHistoryPolitical scienceAestheticsLawEcologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on poststructuralist political ecology, the narratives of two struggles about siting a superquarry are examined to elucidate the complex articulations of community, nature, resistance and identity in play in public debates. Focusing on the discursive formulations of the quarry in the expert language, as well as in the arguments of both local proponents and opponents of the quarries, shows the importance of ontological categories in “environmental” siting disputes. In Harris, these themes rearticulate the histories of dispossession, crofting and religion, as well as complex layers of geographical identity in the various claims to community. In Cape Breton, the rethinking of aboriginal Mi'kmaq identity was stimulated by revived interest in the religious traditions linked to the sacred site near the proposed quarry. In light of these findings, the complexity and active rearticulation of local “community” as political resistance are emphasised and the difficulties of thinking about sustainability highlighted.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0370.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations54
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntipodeSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207