MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2494486823 · doi:10.1057/9781137002464_11

Bodies on the Line: The In/Security of Everyday Life in Aamjiwnaang

2012· book-chapter· en· W2494486823 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Marie Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivilizationEveryday lifeAestheticsShameAngerEmbodied cognitionAnxietyAffect (linguistics)Environmental ethicsPsychologySocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceArtPhilosophyLawEpistemologyCommunicationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When you walk onto the Aamjiwnaang First Nations reserve, residents tell you to pay attention to your body. 1 Your lips might tingle, your body temperature may rise, a rash may appear, you may get a headache; you will smell the stench of pollution in the air. Smokestacks on the horizon dominate the landscape. Your heart may race as fear and anxiety about the unknown health effects set in. Psychosomatic affect becomes a real, embodied experience. Community members express anger, laugh off the experiences through black humour, or turn inward and deny their circumstances (Luginaah, Smith and Lockridge, 2010). These are common emotions of normalization, for those living amidst uncertainty ‘on the volcano of civilization’ at the ‘contours of a risk society’ (Beck, 1986). This chapter is about the location of risk and insecurities of everyday life, where some bodies are emplaced in vulnerable environments, bearing the burden of modern civilization more so than others. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207