Out of Sight, (Not) Out of Mine(d): Theorizing Extractionary Logics in Two Mining Communities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on convergent and divergent experiences of living in two geographically distant mining communities in the United States and Canada, the two authors lean into the “entanglements of bodily and discursive relationships that constitute our life, both socially and biologically” (Iovino, 2018, p. 113) to explore how extractionary logics shape the material and discursive matterings of community. Specifically, thinking with Braidotti’s Critical Posthumanism (2019), our paper will focus on how these two communities are produced by and resistant to extractionary logics via power relations in economies, labor, social mobility, recreation, and land. Though some mines might have been/be out of sight, mines are not out of mind. We explore the prospects of economic stability and social mobility and the irreparably harmful extractionary logics in mining communities, even after reclamation. This research offers insights into our histories-present-futures and how we might reclaim a more thoughtful set of relations with Earth.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it