Conspirando contra el petróleo en la no-ficción americana y canadiense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stephanie LeMenager, literature professor and author of “Living Oil: Petroleum Culture in the American Century” (2014), opens her study of America’s relationship with the resource by asserting that reports of its death have been exaggerated. Oil not only continues to drive American modernity, but also to inspire writers to explore it, in both fiction and non-fiction. While “petrofiction,” fiction with oilat its core, has received critical attention, certain new developments in non-fictional writing centred on petroleum call for more consideration. This article, therefore, probes representations of oil in contemporary American and Canadian non-fiction. It analyses William L. Fox’s essay “A Pipeline Runs through It” (2011), which is based on a trip along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and Andrew Nikiforuk’s article “Canadian Democracy: Death by Pipeline” (2012), which discusses the impact of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia. Adopting an ecocritical perspective, the article puts to the test LeMenager’s thesis that journalists are “expert plotters against oil” and “conservationists.” To this end, it analyses the specific meansby which the two journalists expose the presence of oil and highlight its micro and macro implications, from its impact on the landscape and the lives of people whose livelihoods and cultures have been shaped by the natural world, to that on democracy andour minds.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".