MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200608919 · doi:10.1080/08873631.2021.2008185

Place as boundary object: the Manitoba Oil Museum

2021· article· en· W4200608919 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mya J. Wheeler, Jonathan Luedee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cultural Geography · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBoundary (topology)Object (grammar)Inclusion (mineral)Resource (disambiguation)Boundary-workBoundary objectWork (physics)LegitimacyPetroleum industryArchaeologyVisual artsSociologyHistoryArtComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringLawAnthropologySocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Manitoba Oil Museum and Interpretive Centre (MOMIC) is a collection of people who work and live with oil extraction in the southwestern corner of Manitoba; they have met at annual events, share stories and photos, and induct a major oil contributor into the Manitoba Oil Hall of Fame. At first glance, the Manitoba Oil Museum appears to reify the legitimacy of resource extractive processes and valorize the contributions of key members of Manitoba’s oil industry. However, viewing the museum for the way it is enrolled in the place-making of oil in Manitoba as a boundary object can lead to a different conclusion. An examination of a DVD produced by the museum reveals the ways that boundary work engenders inclusion and exclusion of particular knowledge that operates to condition what is possible within the place-making of oil in Manitoba. This paper suggests paying attention to MOMIC as a place-making boundary object creates opportunities to reveal obscured knowledge-making practices, highlighting inherent critique, but also the limits of critique.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cultural GeographySame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207