MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295613278 · doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1154124

Scaling up site disputes: strategies to redefine ‘local’ in the fight against fracking

2016· article· en· W2295613278 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kate J. Neville, Erika Weinthal

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Politics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCivil societyHydraulic fracturingEnvironmental movementInsiderPolitical scienceChinaPolitical economySociologyPublic administrationLawPoliticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plans to replace an aging diesel backup energy plant with liquid natural gas (LNG) generators in Whitehorse, Yukon, resulted in a public outcry, involving community meetings, massive petitions, and demonstrations. Are these civil society protests just a case of a local siting dispute – a response to an unwanted industrial site in an urban neighborhood? Here, it is argued that siting debates are not the driver of these campaigns, but instead are harnessed by activists to advance a broader environmental movement. By linking the LNG project to more distant extraction, involving hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), movement leaders portray the entire territory as part of the ‘local’ for Whitehorse residents. Movement leaders rely upon two key mechanisms: claiming insider status, and identifying visible symbols. This case reveals the strategic use by environmental movements of local concerns to recruit support for broader campaigns, and the value of local, place-based activism for broader environmental movements.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental PoliticsSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207