MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885113834 · doi:10.1017/9781316831847.018

Introduction: Governmentality, Discourses and Struggles over Imaginaries and Water Knowledge : from Part IV - Governmentality, Discourses and Struggles over Imaginaries and Water Knowledge

2018· article· en· W2885113834 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tom Perreault, Rutgerd Boelens, J.M.C. Vos

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernmentalityPoliticsGovernorAdministration (probate law)Political scienceLawSociologyGender studiesEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standing Rock The protesters called themselves “water protectors.” They came from all corners of the US and Canada, and included members of over 100 Native American tribes and their non-indigenous allies. At the peak of the protest, in early autumn 2016, they numbered in the thousands, but by late February, when the Governor sent some 200 police officers to clear the encampment, only a few dozen remained. Those who left burned their temporary shelters in an act of defiance, and the embers were still smoldering when the police moved in and arrested the few who stayed behind (Smith and Blinder, 2017). For a brief period, it seemed the protesters might have won: the Obama administration halted construction of the Dakota Access pipeline and asked the US Army Corps of Engineers, which was overseeing the project, to find an alternate route. But then the political winds shifted. A right-wing populist was elected President and the winter cold brought with it a form of revanchist politics that had little patience for Native Americans and their atavistic attachments to land and water (Healy and Fandos, 2016; Smith, 2017). The protesters had gathered on the banks of the Cannonball River, near its confluence with the Missouri, where the Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners planned to build the last section of the pipeline. Construction was nearly complete, and all that remained was a short stretch to be built under the Missouri River. The pipeline route consisted entirely of private land, but because it had to cross a navigable waterway, it required the approval of the US Army Corps of Engineers (New York Times, 2016a). Despite opposition from the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US State Department and the Sioux Nation’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office, the Army Corps seemed determined to fast-track the pipeline’s approval. Contrary to federal requirements, it approved construction without meaningful consultation with the Standing Rock Sioux, whose lands and waters the pipeline would impact (Archambault, 2016; Sammon, 2016). Although the pipeline would not cross the Standing Rock reservation, instead passing half a mile north of the reservation boundary, tribal members argued that it crossed land they considered sacred (and which had formerly been part of Sioux territory, of which they were dispossessed in the 1870s when they were confined to the reservation).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.015
Scholarly communication0.0160.013
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207