MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226107864 · doi:10.32920/19519435

Clearly Colonial Podcast - The Wet’suwet’en Pipeline Crisis

2022· preprint· en· W4226107864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Madison Lalonde

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian American and Pacific Histories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineIndigenousColonialismPoliticsBattleAutonomyCorporate governanceGovernment (linguistics)Futures contractPolitical scienceSettlement (finance)Land grabbingPolitical economySociologyLawGeographyBusinessEconomicsArchaeologyManagementEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This podcast explores the Wet’suwet’en Nation’s battle against the Coastal GasLink pipeline infrastructure project supported and facilitated by the Canadian government and the RCMP. By going through the project timeline, clearly colonial moments are revealed, such as imposing governance structures, taking land without consent, endangering the water, violence against indigenous women, as well as removing land defenders from their own land. Time is taken to explain how this project is an example of politics of recognition in Canada, where Indigenous People are recognized as distinct while at the same time their autonomy is continually undermined and ignored. The underlying motives of the project are examined and exposed as equally colonial as it supports a future of fossil fuels and does not offer any benefits to the people and land it exploits. Possible futures are suggested by exploring “alimentary infrastructure” and what that could mean for all people. At this time, there is no conclusion, however, as the struggle is still ongoing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsian American and Pacific HistoriesFrench-language works237,207