MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W28807835

The eyes of the world are upon us : the role of visual images in the fight over Alberta's oil sands

2011· dissertation· en· W28807835 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartographyOptometryGeographyOphthalmologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the controversy over the mining of the Alberta oil sands, tourism has become a tool used by both those who want to stop further development of the oil sands and perhaps also by those who want it to continue. The goal of this research is to examine how the visual images of the environment, within the context of tourism, are being used to influence public opinion over the oil sands operations. Through a multistep process, promotional materials from tourism brochures, guidebooks, and websites, and also from anti-oil sands campaign websites, were analyzed according to their content, with just under 2000 images examined. Nature-tourism is the dominant form of tourism in the oil sands region, and therefore tourism experiences and images from the oil sands region largely feature images of wildlife, scenic views, and outdoor activities in the oil sands region. In contrast, images used by the Rethink Alberta campaign and other anti-oil sands organizations focus on mining operations themselves and their immediate negative effects on the environment. Results of the examination found differences in means of distribution, environmental emphasis, and geographical scale between material from tourism and from anti-oil sands campaigns. The differing goals of the tourism industry and the anti-oil sands campaigns were also reflected in the imagery used, with tourism attempting to attract visitors to pristine environments, while anti-oil sands groups are trying to discourage visitation as a form of protest. By promoting the availability of outdoor experiences through advertisements for nature-tourism activities, and wide use of visual images featuring aspects of nature, the tourism industry may be unintentionally countering anti-oil sands campaign groups’ allegations of wanton ecological destruction and unsustainability.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.213 · 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