Manufacturing Consent to Climate Inaction: A Case Study of The Globe and Mail ’s Pipeline Coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has long been a climate change policy laggard. Canada is among the world’s poorest-performing countries in terms of climate action—not only is Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions-reduction target under the Paris Agreement insufficiently ambitious, Canada is not even remotely on track to meet it. Canada’s enduring inaction on climate change is legitimized and sustained by its mainstream corporate news media, which contribute to the oil and gas industry’s capture of Canadian climate and energy policy. In this article, I examine how Canada’s leading national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, editorially framed the completion of the controversial expansion of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline as being in the “public interest.” The Globe and Mail’s editorial coverage of the Trans Mountain pipeline (among others) is a case study of how corporate new media promote the production and export of fossil fuels at the expense of effective, science-based climate law and policy.
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 | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".