MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136807848 · doi:10.1177/030631201031003001

How Ditch and Drain Become a Healthy Creek

2001· article· en· W2136807848 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Studies of Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)DitchConstruct (python library)SociologyFrame (networking)Work (physics)Social constructionismEnvironmental ethicsEcologyEngineeringSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe and theorize how `grass-roots' environmental activists create a `healthy stream' in their municipality. We frame this activity as a work of creating the creek in a new series of relations in the community that are more consistent with those articulated by stream ecology. This work, which we follow by tracing the activists' use of scientific register and inscriptions, involves re-presenting the creek in numerous localities. But this also means literally remaking the creek by engineering it to conform to the configuration of a `healthy stream'. Thus, not only are the discursive relations that create the creek in the municipal hall or local school reconfigured, but the physical relations that construct the material creek are also altered. Highlighting the social-material hybrid from which the activists' agency emerges, we relate the representations, material work and relations they use to transform both the creek and the community.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.311 · 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