Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hegemonic discourse often portrays as “normal” or desirable the use of fossil fuels, despite the devastation brought through accessing those fuels. Currently, some of the worst examples of this devastation result from the petroleum industry. However, efforts to challenge its practices–and its hegemonic power–in fact reinforce other forms of hegemonic power. This article examines some of those instances. This article analyzes filmmaker Joe Berlinger’s 2009 documentary Crude.Crudefeatures the lawsuit filed by 30,000 Ecuadorian people against Chevron. Ironically, Crude shows how Western upper-class privilege is invoked to solve the Ecuadorians’ problems. We can infer their resistance to one hegemonic power–i.e., a multinational petroleum corporation–is only possible through using other hegemonic power like white, male, upper-class privilege. This article draws upon Gayatri Spivak’s canonical text “Can the Subaltern Speak” and Louis Althusser’s concept of ideological apparatuses to support this claim.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".