Counter-Memory Activism in the Aftermath of Tragedy: A Case Study of the Westray Families Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les récits ont leur importance dans la manière qu'ont les gens d'interpréter les grands moments de leur existence. Cette étude propose une analyse de récit sur l'activisme de contre-mémoire adopté par un groupe de familles de victimes de l'explosion de la mine de Westray (à Plymouth, Nouvelle-Ecosse, en 1992), tragédie qui a coûté la vie à vingt-six mineurs. Contre l'interprétation des intervenants de premier plan (e.g., c'était un “accident”), le groupe a opposé un récit sur la “négligence criminelle” de la compagnie, autour duquel il a tissé ses activités publique de commémoration. En s'inspirant du socioconstructivisme et de l'approche de la mémoire sociale, notre étude montre comment un regroupement de familles modestes peut influer la mémoire sociale et l'action collective. Narratives are critical to how people understand themselves and the significant events of their lives. Drawing upon social memory theory and the social constructionist approach to social problems, this study provides a narrative analysis of the counter-memory activism of the Westray Families Group (WFG), which formed after 26 men died in the 1992 Westray mine explosion (Plymouth, NS). Against alternative explanations promoted by more powerful stakeholders, the WFG adopted and weaved a corporate negligence narrative into their commemorative activism. This study illustrates how a small families group can draw reflexively upon and reshape cultural scripts to narrate how others should remember and respond to key events.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".