Falling in Place: Geoscience, Disaster, and Cultural Heritage at the Frank Slide, Canada’s Deadliest Rockslide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounded in a case study of the Frank Slide, Canada’s Deadliest Rockslide, this article introduces a new perspective on disaster sites as socio-cultural entities by way of correlating the specific technicality of scientific research and management of disaster sites with a broader conceptual framework from within the social sciences and spatial theories. Heritage sites such as the Frank Slide are often understood as protected places that benefit the image of a sovereign nation (i.e., a “place-myth”). It is often assumed that heritage sites need protection from natural elements and from human interference. But the case of the Frank Slide is different, insofar as (a) it is a heritage site made out of the remnants of a terrifying disaster and (b) it is predicted to be further damaged when its ensuing rockslide follows (sometime between now and 5,000 years). This makes the case of the Frank Slide an intriguing one for an interdisciplinary study, since it is made up of various overlapping temporalities belonging to the measurement-time of scientific monitoring, commodity-time of the tourism industry, myth-time of national identity, duration-time of cultural memory, and the anticipation-time of further disaster. The analysis considers how these disparate activities contribute to the vitalization, devitalization, and revitalization of place, in such a way that challenges the “dark tourism” paradigm that has come to frame disaster sites. This article thus proposes a unique synthesis between these times and practices contained within them in order to elucidate and explore how various overlapping temporalities make up the visible and invisible materials of a place.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".