Expressing the Structural Nature of Development Discourse Analytical and Graphically Using a Qualitative Comparative Model of Thinking and Acting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two of the most well-known clashes of development ideas are the realist-liberalist discourse and the environmental-social justice discourse, which are competing for the opportunity to influence decisions that determine what type of, how, where and when development should take place. The first type of discourse can be considered the old one, where realist want a strong state driven, but closed development model while theliberalists envision a weak state driven, but opened development model. This can be considered, the original or seminal one-dimensional development discourse usually known as the extreme authoritarian centralism and unrestrained liberalism (Cameliau 2002). The second type of discourse is a relatively new one, where some advocate the implementation of ecology-centered development while others advocate the implementation of society centered development. For example, Morito (2003) indicates that environmental strategies such as preservation approaches can become discriminatory/cooptation tools if they leave out other values such as social losses/benefits. Both types of discourses have internal and external differences in terms of where development action and thinking should be located and this underlines their main paradigm structure or their pulling form. And these internal and external differences can be highlighted in simple terms by looking at the general theoretical structure of each paradigm involved and by later contrasting them. A short overview of each of the paradigms involved in each type of development discourse is presented below in order to later point the general paradigm structure of each type of discourse.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".