From resource security to resource securitisation: materialities, latent securitisation, and the politics of (in)security in low-carbon transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on recent debates about materialities, this paper examines processes of resource securitisation occurring amidst a climate crisis and renewed international tensions. The past two decades have seen shifts between resource security (i.e. routine policies seeking to achieve stable, economically efficient, resilient, and sustainable resource management) and resource securitisation (i.e. exceptional policies invoking national security, climate emergency, and geopolitical imperatives). Focusing on two empirical cases – critical minerals and oil & gas – we suggest that the rapid pace and relative ease of these shifts reflect a state of latent securitisation, whereby the securitisation of particular objects is facilitated by the existing security constructions embedded in their materialities and imaginaries. Examining how securitisation takes material form – and how material processes become securitised – complements discursive approaches in critical security studies, while also highlighting the tangible impacts of securitisation and security discourse on material practices.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".