Introduction: Narratives and Temporalities of Infrastructure in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approaches to InfrastructureI nfrastructures lie at the core of numerous social transformations, sociopolitical and economic developments, and creative processes of innovation.They have become significant indicators of an ongoing transition towards preferable futures, symbols of economic growth, technological advancement, and modernization.As Harvey and Knox (2012, 523) argue, infrastructures embody "promises of emancipatory modernity"-such as speed, connectivity, and economic prosperity; they "enchant" the hopes and dreams associated with development.Infrastructures contribute to imaginaries of improved futures, which remain elusive, flawed, and difficult to define (Abram and Weszkalnys 2013).Operating "on the level of fantasy and desire" (Larkin 2013, 333), infrastructures "draw together political and economic forces in complicated ways and often with unexpected effects," implicating "broader dynamics of social change" (Harvey, Jensen, and Morita 2017, 2).Although infrastructures are inherently future-oriented-serving as vehicles of domination and transformation-they are designed and assembled in ways that sustain contemporary settler states and societies.This process is shaped by power relations, sociopolitical change, and the material organization of everyday life in space and time (Spice 2018).Pasternak and colleagues (2023) demonstrate how infrastructure functions as a tool of settler colonialism.Infrastructures-such as roads, pipelines, and energy grids-not only facilitate economic development but also serve as mechanisms for asserting jurisdiction and reinforcing colonial control over Indigenous lands.The construction of new infrastructures often proceeds without Indigenous consent, enabling resource
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 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".