Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In North America, one factor shaping petromodernity is the idea that oil offers a solution to the very problems it causes. This article examines that paradox, focusing on the 1950s. It analyzes a set of pamphlets from the Petroleum Industry School Program that were distributed by the American Petroleum Institute (API), the trade organization that promotes the US oil industry. It first describes the evolution of support for and opposition to the oil industry as well as that of the ideas of freedom that the industry sought to mobilize to gain public support. Next it describes the content of the pamphlets, which employed a series of binary pairs, such as success/failure and risk/reward. API used these pairs to craft stories that acknowledged problems inherent in the oil industry, invoked their inverse, and showed how oil solved them. This article concludes by describing the real-world consequences of API’s efforts as they were manifest in processes of policy formation in North Dakota during its 1951–54 oil boom. Through its efforts to frame discussions about oil, API made it possible for political leaders to make decisions about technical issues from which the oil industry stood to benefit.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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 it