When petro-capitalism comes knocking: community interpretations and responses to the Gros Morne fracking controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the depletion of conventional oil and gas sources, the world is turning to what Urry terms “tough oil,” such as oil from the Alberta oil sands and Arctic. Fracking is a prominent example of this. Situated within an environmental justice framework, I analyze community interpretations and responses to proposed fracking development near Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland, Canada. Based on data generated from interviews, field observations and content analysis of texts, my findings suggest that how residents view rural place is highly significant in influencing supportive or oppositional positions on fracking. Proponents picture place as a resource extraction landscape, whereas opponents understand place as a restorative landscape for leisure/tourism activities. Through debates about fracking, place is contested and re-imagined. In many ways, fracking is a struggle over who has the power to define the meanings and characteristics of rural community in an era of tough oil and significant rural change.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".