MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623503673 · doi:10.1177/1048291117712546

Crude Exploration

2017· article· en· W2623503673 on OpenAlex
Shane M. Dixon, Tim Gawley

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

VenueNEW SOLUTIONS A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeepwater horizonIndividualismPetroleum industryProfit (economics)BusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineeringOil spillEconomicsPetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2016 film Deepwater Horizon offers a rare portrayal of industrial disaster. It is novel as there are few film-based treatments of this issue. The film enables the public to learn about the disaster, the lives lost, and the stories of survival, but it also provides the opportunity to examine how industrial disaster and, by extension, occupational health and safety may be publicly framed and understood. This article presents an analysis of Deepwater Horizon. Four primary industrial disaster frames are identified in the film: profit maximization, technology and technology failure, managerial conflict, and worker portrayals. Each frame offers advantages and limitations for enhancing public understandings of industrial disaster. Missing from the film is the regulatory environment of the oil drilling industry, whose omission serves to potentially reproduce messages that privilege individualistic, isolated, views of industrial disasters and prioritize immediate over distal causes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.250 · 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