MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408546914 · doi:10.16995/tsi.17529

Why is Coal Still Mined? Insights from Asbestos and the Structures of Risk Invisibilization

2025· article· en· W4408546914 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and Social Inquiry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The deleterious consequences of coal mining are well known, but little attention is paid to the most egregious of all: black lung disease. The 21st-century resurgence of black lung sheds light onto the persistent inability of regulations to address this problem. Despite this, voices seeking the fading out of coal mining based on health concerns are scarce. This paper examines why coal is still mined in the United States through a comparison with asbestos mining in Quebec, Canada, which ended in 2013 for similar health reasons. Drawing on archival research, I argue that the persistence of coal is the result of greater risk invisibilization. I rely on a structural approach to risk construction and highlight how macro-level factors shape the social construction of risks downstream. Three factors explain the unique trajectory of coal: labor’s cooptation of black lung activism, the bottom-up formulation of the federal regulatory framework, and the concentration of health risks within mining communities. This paper specifies conditions under which certain regulatory issues can become visible and lead to reforms, while others remain on the margins of the political agenda.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.094
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.278 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and Social InquirySame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207