MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760699480 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2017v42n4a3201

Fuel as a Factor in Canadian Transport: Energy Capital and Communication Theory

2017· article· en· W2760699480 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Matthew Greaves

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodityCapital (architecture)Circulation (fluid dynamics)Settlement (finance)CoalMode (computer interface)EconomyConsumption (sociology)Energy (signal processing)EconomicsSociologyEngineeringHistoryMarket economySocial scienceArchaeologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Established in 1849, the Fort Rupert coal settlement represented a departure in the Hudson’s Bay Company’s mode of colonial wealth accumulation on Vancouver Island. Company officials failed, however, to appreciate basic differences in the new mode of accumulation, including the importance of transportation to capitalist mineral extraction. Analysis This article accomplishes three things: it retrieves foundational theories of transportation and commodity circulation once popular in communication studies, provides a documentary account of coal mining and the coal trade in the mid-nineteenth-century eastern Pacific, and articulates a theory of capitalist energy consumption. Conclusion and implications The culminating theory of energy capital positions the extraction and circulation of fuel within Canadian communication studies through a transportation-focused approach to communication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207