Northern Alberta’s Boreal Forest: A Contentious Field of Competing Interests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian oil sands project is one of the largest privatized resource extraction projects in the world today. In a time of wide spread belief of global warming and the end of cheap unconventional oil this project became the centre of attention of the international community. Followed by the media as a vehicle to communicate these concerns to the global stage this became a polarized debate between ethical oil and dirty oil. This resulted in a culture which I call, a contentious field of competing interests.\n\nCapitalist forms, like the oil sands project, and processes are continually made and unmade. This is often overlooked in theory of globalization. I demonstrate the successes and ruptures in in the remaking of places, in this case the Athabasca oil sands region in Northern Alberta by taking my reader to a public hearing for the approval of oil sands leases. I trace the coming into being of one particular project to demonstrate how the Boreal Forest is shaped through an “awkward engagement” of people across the globe. I’ll give a rough outlining of their interests and aspirations of the involved parties and show how some reap the rewards of this new power arrangement that sprung from this coalition of people, and other don’t – collateral damage. \nThis is an anthropological masterthesis about the lives of people who live side by side with oil sands development and globalization processes that reshaped the environment and therefore their culture and lives of these people over roughly the past century.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".