Ecopoetic Interventions: Poets Critiquing Canadian Petrocultures and Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project examines how petrocultural narratives, and infrastructure, are created and sustained through official rhetoric. I explore how ecopoetic interventions can be leveraged to influence public policy, articulate political will for a transition towards low-carbon energy futures, and galvanize social movements by reading two collections of poetry, The Enpipe Line and Once in Blockadia, to compare how language was created, deployed, and interpreted in defence of and opposition to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline. By comparing the ecopoetic interventions of Canadian poets and activists alongside state and corporate policy documents, I explore how petroculture has shaped the dominant narrative and material infrastructure of the Canadian state. I argue that ecopoetics offers modes to resist official rhetoric that obfuscates petroculture and forms of participatory public praxis that can be leveraged to transition Canadian energy systems, policy, and imagination towards a just low-carbon future.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".