MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904931125

“It’s always the same routine,” but…: Workers’ modes of dwelling on the Romaine River hydroelectric megaproject (North Shore, Quebec, Canada)

2018· article· en· W2904931125 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurie Guimond, Alexia Desmeules

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de geographie · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousHydroelectricityShoreTypologyWork (physics)Resource (disambiguation)GeographySociologyEnvironmental planningEngineeringArchaeologyFisheryEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the everyday geographical experience of workers at the Romaine hydroelectric project on the North Shore (Quebec) to better understand ways of dwelling in workcamps and worksites of northern resource development megaprojects. Using a qualitative approach based on in-depth interviews with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous workers, regional and extra-regional, we study four interdependent components of ways of dwelling on the remote worksite and its camps: work, mobility, living together, habitat. The transversal reading of the workers’ diverse experiences–positive or otherwise–leads to an original typology of modes of dwelling that intersects their profile and their sense of place: the shelter (or home), the workshop, the gilded prison, the penitentiary, the stopover. Our analysis reveals that beyond a neoliberal model of resource development based on pragmatism and productivity, that imposes a rigid structure and firmly established routines on the workers, a picture emerges of differing relations with the worksite and with colleagues of various geographical and cultural origins.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.176 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 venueAnnales de geographieSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207