Rootedness along the way: meaningful sociality in petroleum and mining mobile worker camps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rotational shift work, long-distance commuting (LDC) and fly-in/fly-out (FIFO) have become increasingly prevalent forms of labour force provision in the resource extraction sector worldwide over the last few decades. This entails the workforce being on the move, with cycles of long shifts on site and extended periods back home. This article draws on ethnographic field work carried out in Arctic Russia and Subarctic Canada among petroleum and mining workers. It focusses on sociality processes in workers’ camps. I employ the notion of ‘meaningful sociality’ among camp inhabitants, which comes about when workers experience ‘rootedness along the way’. Both notions are basic elements of a long-term and satisfactory mobile and multilocal lifestyle. This article shows how the quality of rootedness, job satisfaction and wellbeing in such a labour setting are highly dependent on intersectional conditions of equality at interpersonal and politico-economic scales. Corporations are called upon to actively facilitate the necessary material and affective camp conditions to enable meaningful sociality and provide an equity-based atmosphere for people to become rooted along their way.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".