MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405099381 · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-16286

Settler news media understandings of Wet’suwet’en sovereignty and the Coastal GasLink Pipeline: Discourses of territorial sovereignty, legality, and justice

2024· dissertation· en· W4405099381 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Thomas Scholte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyPrinciple of legalityMainstreamNormativeContext (archaeology)Political scienceJurisdictionSociologyEconomic JusticeLawMedia studiesPoliticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis uses the concept of the settler imaginary to conduct a critical discourse analysis of 113 news articles covering the Wet'suwet'en-CGL conflict.Specifically, I engage with 3 research questions: 1) What are the narratives that frame Wet'suwet'en dispossession as legal or "just"?2) How does mainstream media express understandings of territory and resource rights in the context of Wet'suwet'en assertions of sovereignty?3) How do these understandings relate to, or reflect, notions of settler reason?Mainstream media performs a discursive function in responding to Wet'suwet'en assertions of sovereignty, discursively moving claims into the jurisdiction of Canadian law.News articles create a discursive distance between the present dynamics of the Wet'suwet'en-CGL conflict and historic and ongoing settler colonialism.I argue news articles reflect a normative framework of rationality, one that justifies infringement of Wet'suwet'en title for the needs of extraction.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.022
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMining and Resource Management→French-language works237,207→