Collegial or Contentious? Reflections on an Interdisciplinary Panel Discussion about an Oil Pipeline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
528 and Fox, Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, and Choctaw Nations (see Figure 1).The path of the pipeline crosses through several potable water sources, making the hazards associated with its construction and ongoing maintenance an environmental and human rights issue for local communities.Capable of transporting up to 200,000 barrels of crude oil a day, the pipeline supplies a Valero refinery near Memphis.Cushing, an oil boom town located 69 miles (111 km) north of Oklahoma City, was the location of a prosperous oil field in the early 20 th century before becoming a depot for several major pipeline projects, including the Keystone Pipeline System.Before and especially during construction, numerous Indigenous and environmental groups publicly protested the Diamond Pipeline and the corporations responsible for its construction.This opposition took place against the backdrop of several other high profile pipeline protests, including those against TC Energy's Keystone XL Pipeline project and the demonstrations at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016.The Dakota Access Pipeline protests received considerable media coverage as Indigenous youth activists and local Native American communities rallied against the development plan, particularly regarding the threat that the pipeline's construction would pose to regional water supplies.Student activists at OU took note of these protests and began organizing events to raise awareness locally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".