MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256314544 · doi:10.3138/topia.32.179

Iceberg Economies

2015· article· en· W4256314544 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rafico Ruiz

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergThrivingEconomyBusinessGeographyEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In A Postcapitalist Politics (2006), J.K. Gibson-Graham deploy an image of a floating iceberg to illustrate what we commonly understand by “the economy.” In their reading of the diverse economy framework, the proverbial tip of the iceberg economy is comprised of “wage labor, market exchange of commodities, and capitalist enterprise” (2006: 70). By contrast, its submerged body can include a multiplicity of sites and actors such as producer cooperatives, bartering practices, and gifts. On the northernmost tip of Newfoundland, in the once-thriving fishing port of St. Anthony, icebergs are being harvested for bottling and sale in the global premium water market. At international trade fairs from Dubai to Shanghai, iceberg water is marketed as the purest water on the planet and a resource originating from a time before the dire effects of pollution and mass industrialization. This article traces the various encounters between icebergs and human actors in the geographical region known as “Iceberg Alley,” in order to assess the social, cultural, economic, and political stakes of these “new” natural resources. The article asks, “If Newfoundland’s Iceberg Alley is ‘the economy,’ what lies below its surface?”

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207