Oil Sands in European Media: Representations of the Canadian Oil Sands in European Newspapers, 2008–2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how leading European newspapers reported on oil-sands production in Canada between 2008 and 2013. Based on content and critical discourse analysis of news reports published in major daily newspapers in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, it compares the interpretative frames and dominant storylines. The data analysis suggests that overall, European coverage adopted a critical perspective based on the environmental impacts of oil-sands development, with very particular differences in environmental frame building among the national media analyzed. The British coverage focused mainly on narratives based on a combination of factors such as cultural ties between the two countries and social and cultural practices of reporting on annual shareholders’ meetings. In contrast, the later German and French environmental frame building was embedded mostly in the European debate over the Fuel Quality Directive or in discussions of the Keystone XL pipeline project. This article aims to provide a broader picture of how a prominent Canadian public policy issue is reflected in Europe and to contribute to the assessment of Stephen Harper’s goal of fostering the international image of Canada as an energy superpower. The results of the empirical analysis suggest that Canada’s position in the oil market did not allow it to actively lead the international energy discourse and instead fractured its ability to efficiently influence this aspect of its international image. As a result, oil-sands production had important destabilizing effects on Canada’s international image in European media.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".