Progress stories and the contested making of minerals in Greenland and northern Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to go beyond progress stories presented in and about the North by industry and governmental bodies. By pursuing event ethnography and public policy analysis, progress stories are analyzed and contextualized, drawing on recent insights from participant-observations at mining conferences and conventions (e.g. PDAC), field visits (organized by REXSAC and the MinErAL Network) to Greenland and Quebec. Quebec has a long history of mining, and in Greenland substantial profit from mining has also been possible (before the Greenland Self-Government authorities took over the responsibility for the mineral resource area). Northern communities are in many ways co-investors of mining projects and promised to benefit from the extractive activities. However, with a (2014) mining strategy preparing Greenland for something that never really happened. Mining in Greenland is still carried out, but the making of minerals there is contested. Around the same time, Québec launched Plan Nord and initiatives mostly aimed at fostering mining investment and development in Northern Québec. The analysis illustrates that development of the mining industry in praxis is much more modest than envisioned, but still the progress stories do have an impact on local politics, the understanding of history, and relationships between North and South.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".