Place‐making at a national scale: Framing tar sands extraction as “Canadian” in<i>The Globe and Mail</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the concept of place has most often been used to examine micro‐scale locales, recent explications of place‐making and place‐framing can usefully inform debates on nations, nationalism, and the nation‐state. Viewing the nation as a contested, unstable, and relational place enables a pluralist and dynamic understanding of how nation‐places are constructed and contested, by whom, and towards what ends. In this paper, we examine public debates over the extraction of the Canadian tar sands as an illustrative example of how place is negotiated, deployed, and contested to legitimize particular outcomes. We analyzed 50 articles from one of Canada's most widely circulated daily newspapers, The Globe and Mail. We found diverging place‐frames of Canada used by government, industry, Indigenous groups, environmentalists, and other stakeholders as they make cases for and against the development of the tar sands. Framings of Canada promoted by the government and industry—Canada as a modern, rational, and legitimate actor—featured most prominently in the sample. Importantly, however, counter‐frames trouble narratives of Canada's inherent benevolent and responsible nature, and offer a small, yet strong opposition to hegemonic national imaginaries.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".