MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6988077069

Welfare Mines : Extraction and Development in Postwar Northern Canada

2024· other· en· W6988077069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousFrontierPoliticsWelfareHegemonyHuman welfarePosition (finance)Natural resourceState (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of extractive industries in development outcomes is a contested matter. The unresolved, provocative nature of modern mines, and in particular, of the industry’s self-positioning as an engine of local or regional improvement raises difficult problems for territorial, political, economic, cultural, and ontological sovereignty, in part because of the deeply hegemonic position it has assumed. This thesis broadly examines the interaction between two distinct but interrelating areas of development – resources extraction and human welfare – in northern Canada since the postwar period. I examine this question by following ideas and politics governing peoples and mines, and I explain how theories and practices of development evolved and intervened via industrial mining and the labour of Indigenous miners in northern Canada from 1945 up to the present. I present the results as a historical geography of state policy where mineral exploitation and human development intersect. Through a historical analysis grounded in a critical review of literature and the archival record, I consider economic progress and the closely linked mineral frontier advancement within Canada’s Arctic and subarctic regions, according to five periods: I Necessary interventions (1948–57); II Program for human betterment (1957–62); III Alternative development (1959–67); IV The dual economy (1968–84); and V Towards sustainable mines (1982–2005). Throughout this study, I adopt a comparative method in which I select multiple case examples that can, as a cumulative force, yield explanatory power. I do not conceive of the chosen industrial or mine sites as in-depth studies in their own right, but instead as part of a constellation of places that can serve to zoom in and out in order to cover a larger geographic unit spanning the Canadian north. A historical reconceptualization and a historicization of northern mines as locales of welfare making has revealed their ambiguous potential in bringing forth a radical transformation of peoples, lands, and societies in Canada. The pledge to improve societies based on the profitable exploitation of mineral resources arguably worked in lockstep with the delivery of large-scale mining to northern Canada; a double program I have come to view as the building of welfare mines. This thesis demonstrates that the welfare mines remain important sites where the apparent tension between money and peoples is used productively by the state. They are real-world places, material holes in the ground where mineral wealth is extracted but also where humans are reshaped, where both phenomena are inextricably woven within the overall rubric of development finally used to serve colonial governments. Welfare, insofar as it interacts with industrial development, participates, enables, is how mining capitalism works – welfare and exploitation necessarily coexist at northern mines. The welfare mines not only opened new possibilities in the north, they also served to foreclose other paths, thereby benefiting the mines in a self-reinforcing cycle. It is an all-embracing force that was not meant to be contained or to coincide with diverse modes of production or means of living. This is the power of welfare mines, a social power that illuminates the broader welfare mechanics of colonial power in northern Canada, and beyond.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0210.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)French-language works237,207