Energy East and Dakota Access: Pipelines, Protest, and the Obstacles of Mutual Unintelligibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative article examines the controversies surrounding the Energy East pipeline in New Brunswick and the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota. It analyzes four key texts, one from an Indigenous leader and one from an elected or business leader in each place. It employs a heuristic tool that describes speakers’ frames as “scenes of thought” to discover the assumptions underpinning each group’s worldview about (1) the actors involved in the controversies and (2) their spatial and temporal relationships to each other. Two pictures emerge. The first is of two groups—Native and non-Native leaders—with incommensurable perspectives on the continuity (or discontinuity) of time and space. From within their worldviews, the other group’s arguments appeared unconvincing or incomprehensible. The second is of two modes of engagement, shaped by Canadian and US approaches to securing consent for resource extraction, that prompted different forms of interaction between Indigenous peoples and the companies that wanted to lay pipeline across their land.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".