Two Tales of Climate Politics in Canada: How Notions of Canadian Cultural Identity and Common-Sense Shape Canadian Climate Coalitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the hegemonic role of oil and gas in Canadian politics and culture alongside contestation over renewable energy (RE). Federally, the governing Liberals represent a middle-ground coalition that both supports the oil/gas industry and seeks to portray itself as a champion of climate action. Significant progress on climate goals is undermined by actions that lock in large-scale carbon emissions for decades. The Ontario Liberal Party phased out coal and invested heavily in wind energy. However, after 2018, the Conservatives have steered Ontario away from wind. The authors argue that differing climate coalitions have produced different notions of national identity and common sense when it comes to oil/gas and RE. At both the federal and provincial levels, culture is being mobilized successfully by opponents of climate action against green energy transitions. Countering the hegemony of neoliberal extractivism requires a transformation of Canadian identity vis-à-vis oil and gas and an embrace of the common sense of RE.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".