“New Hampshire is Not Your Extension Cord:” Understanding Opposition to Transmission Lines in Northern New England.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New England represents a critical arena for imagining the multiple scales and geographies of energy transition. To the south, the densely-populated states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island power the regional political economy and increasingly aspire to expand their reliance on low-carbon energy sources. To the north, Hydro-Quebec, Canada’s largest hydropower producer, stands poised to increase its hydroelectric production and electricity exports to the northeastern United States as it envisions its future as North America’s “leading provider of clean energy.” Citizens of northern New England, however, have argued that this vision for regional energy transition leaves them the role of “extension cord.” This paper analyzes grassroots opposition to the Northern Pass project, a proposed high-capacity transmission line that would have increased imports of Quebecois hydroelectricity to southern New England. Drawing on interviews and from discourse and material analysis, this paper argues that opposition to Northern Pass was motivated by complex notions of stewardship, solidarity, resistance, and contestation that, rather than simply standing in the way of energy development, work to imagine more just futures for this transnational energy system at multiple scales obscured by accusations of NIMBYism, or the Not-In-My-Backyard movement.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".