Infrastructures and feelings of ontological (in)security in times of crisis: Lessons from rural areas in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In government guidelines the strengthening of rural infrastructure is often seen as a central building block to create economically prosperous, well‐developed rural regions and to support the well‐being of local communities. We challenge this assumption by analyzing the subjective handling of infrastructures in a remote rural area in British Columbia, Canada. Based on the analysis of empirical material from photography‐supported interviews, we argue that fully capturing the influence of infrastructures on local communities requires a relational approach to infrastructures understood as infrastructuring. Derived from the conceptualization of infrastructuring in science and technology studies, we developed the notion of infrastructural autonomy. With the notion of infrastructural autonomy, we are able to outline our findings that subjective and place‐sensitive handlings of infrastructures promote gains in personal ontological security. Based on our qualitative study, we argue that a closer examination of the subjective relation between a place, its infrastructure, and its inhabitants is crucial to understand the infrastructural needs of a place as well as the well‐being of its users.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".