MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996506395 · doi:10.1111/anhu.12246

The Ghosts of Mining Past: A Settler Colonial Story

2019· article· en· W2996506395 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropology & Humanism · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEthnographyColonialismEthnologyAnthropologySociologyHistoryGender studiesEcologyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Ethnographic reports of ghosts, spirits, and other nonhuman agents are portrayed as very different entities depending upon whether the people perceiving them are recognized as indigenous or nonindigenous. The nonhuman agents apprehended by indigenous peoples are nearly always described as ontological, while ethnographers tend to treat ghosts and other spirits among nonindigenous peoples as a form of protest. Using ethnographic data from the former silver mining settler community of Cobalt, Ontario Canada, I challenge this dichotomization. Instead, I argue ghostly encounters may arise from the social practices of emplacement, which may be indigenous or nonindigenous. In Cobalt, heritage work and nostalgia for an earlier time causes some residents to envision ghosts or spirits of long ended mining.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.308 · 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