MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408320499 · doi:10.1111/anti.70010

A Parasite Not a Cannibal? How the State and Capital Protect Accumulation Amid Devastation

2025· article· en· W4408320499 on OpenAlexaff
Rosemary‐Claire Collard, Jessica Dempsey

Bibliographic record

VenueAntipode · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital (architecture)State (computer science)Parasite hostingCapital accumulationPolitical economyDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceHistoryEconomicsMarket economyAncient historyHuman capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nancy Fraser's recent book, Cannibal Capitalism , breathes new life into the eco‐Marxist concept of the ecological contradiction, arguing capitalism destroys its own ecological conditions of possibility like a serpent eating its own tail. Fraser's thesis appears to be playing out in British Columbia forests, where industry is closing mills and cutting jobs, decrying an increasingly limited “fibre basket”. But amid the ecosystem degradation industrial forestry has wrought over decades, including impacts to now‐endangered caribou, forestry firms and the state protect capital's ability to accumulate: firms move capital outside BC; the state replenishes trees, maintains “investability”, and attempts to avoid caribou extinction without constricting capital's access to nature. Capitalism thus appears more parasitic than cannibalistic. Taking a long view, BC forestry is, like capitalism broadly, durable despite being anti‐ecological, in part due to the state's powerful stabilising role.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.023
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntipodeSame topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and USFrench-language works237,207