MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3015096463 · doi:10.3138/ctr.182.006

Renewable Relations in Make Muskrat Right

2020· article· en· W3015096463 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Olivia Heaney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsAttunementIndigenousEvent (particle physics)FantasyHistoryAestheticsSociologyLawArtPolitical sciencePoliticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes two 2018 performance events organized by the Labrador Land Protectors, a grassroots collective currently advocating against the construction of a massive hydroelectric generating facility at Muskrat Falls, Labrador, through a movement that has come to be known as Make Muskrat Right. The first event, In Loving Memory, staged a mock memorial service for lost lands and culture and took place as part of the National Day of Action against Muskrat Falls in June 2018. The second event occurred at the closing ceremonies of the Muskrat Falls Symposium, held in September 2018 at Memorial University of Newfoundland. At these events, the collective experience of melancholia for that which has been lost as a result of Western energy culture foregrounded and enacted the intimacy needed for decolonial love. Taken together, the events shed light on the way relations between settlers and multiple Indigenous groups in Make Muskrat Right resist the settler fantasy of reconciliation, focusing instead on recognition, healing, and renewal through attunement and responsiveness to difference.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.020
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre Review→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→