MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401106103 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2024.2346884

The Thin Green Line: Coast Salish and Indigenous Resistance to Energy Transmission Projects

2024· article· en· W4401106103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James M. Hundley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousResistance (ecology)Line (geometry)Transmission (telecommunications)Transmission lineEnergy (signal processing)GeographyTelecommunicationsEngineeringPhysicsBiologyEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous alliances have been central in stopping the export and transmission of fossil fuel products from Alberta through the west coast. This article compares two pipeline projects, the Enbridge Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain pipelines, to examine the ways that Indigenous activism works to counter the settler colonial state. The Trans Mountain case objected to by many Coast Salish nations on both sides of the international border is a unique case because the Coast Salish assert a unified nationality as a part of their environmental activism. Based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted with Coast Salish nations, this article argues that the Coast Salish reject the structures of a settler colonial state despite continuing to encounter obstacles. While the Enbridge pipeline was defeated, the Trans Mountain project is ongoing and uncertain. Both cases show the impacts of Indigenous and non-native alliance making. The Coast Salish case adds an important transnational component to theorizing alliance making that shows innovative strategies used by Indigenous nations to confront the settler colonial state.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207