Hearts and mines. Communication, dissent and counterinsurgency around extractive projects from Canada to Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extractivism has contributed to update Reason of State doctrines in Latin America since the mid-2000, translating cold-war categories – like that of the ‘internal enemy’ – into new ones better adapted to ‘reconciliation’ meta discourses. While the securitisation of extractive conflicts in Colombia builds on a well-established counterinsurgency expertise, emerging claims and mobilisations – around environmental issues, Indigenous rights and territorial autonomy – have also forced significant adaptations. This opened opportunities for extractive norm entrepreneurs to disseminate Canadian innovations for the management of the social environment surrounding extractive projects. These innovations can be summarised in two parts: 1. The subordination of law to practices of engagement and communication between companies and local communities through so-called Corporate Social Responsibility mechanisms; and 2. The projection of a moral imperative of transparency on communities and social actors. Beyond the strictly operational level, these normative innovations also articulate a specific kind of politico-legal doctrine aimed at mitigating the destabilising effects of emergent rights claims and neutralising the emancipatory potential of law. In this paper, we provide historical antecedents for the development of these innovations in Canada, analyse how norm entrepreneurs disseminate this doctrine between Canada and Colombia, and look at its implications for democratic uses of law.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".