“Fighting the Same Old Battle”: Obscured Oil Sands Entanglements in Press Coverage of Indigenous Resistance in the Winter of 1983
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This article examines a week-long road blockade that took place in northern Alberta in January, 1983, organized by members of the Fort McKay First Nation and the Fort McKay Métis Community. The communities leveraged their blockade against a logging company, expanding the conversation to demand compensation, tougher oil sands pollution management, and better healthcare access. Analysis A critical discourse analysis of newspaper coverage of the blockade in the local Fort McMurray Today and the provincial Edmonton Journal shows how links between the blockade and broader oil sands politics were minimized. Conclusions and implications The article closes with considerations for contemporary journalistic practices of covering oil development, energy politics, and Indigenous resistance.Contexte Cet article examine le blocus d’une semaine organisé par la Première Nation de Fort McKay et la Communauté Métis de Fort McKay au nord de l’Alberta en janvier 1983. Ces communautés ont mis à profit leur blocus contre une entreprise forestière pour demander des compensations, une gestion plus stricte de la pollution provenant des sables bitumineux et un meilleur accès aux soins.Analyse Une analyse critique du discours utilisé pour parler du blocus dans les journaux, au niveau local dans le Fort McMurray Today et au niveau provincial dans le Edmonton Journal, démontre comment les liens entre le blocus et les politiques plus larges des sables bitumineux ont été minimisés.Conclusion et implications L’article conclut avec des considérations pour les pratiques journalistiques contemporaines dans la couverture du développement pétrolier, politiques énergétiques et résistance autochtone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".