Bibliographic record
Abstract
When environmental preservation and human health are put in jeopardy by Alberta's oil industry, largely overseen by global corporations, ideally the best minds on the issues would engage a nonpartisan dialogue that respects the human, cultural, environmental, and economic interests at play.Tar Wars: Oil, Environment and Alberta's Image by Geo Takach, examines how the debates over Alberta's bituminous oil sands projects (i.e., known popularly as the tar sands) were conducted via a filmic battle between filmmakers, global corporations, and governments to define Alberta's image amidst its bitumen boom.Takach's study "questions the ultimate utility of using film and video as media in the discourse of Alberta and the bit-sands" (p.157).While film can also advance drama over scientific detail and nuance, it can also rally public support to stave off potential disasters.Takach's study attempts to explore how identity is constructed through communication, here documentary and promotional film, so that readers might take the insights of the study to critically engage issues of ecological, economic, and human interest in their own communities through film/media.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.009 | 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".