Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Changing Nature: Myth of the Inevitability of Management, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 675 (2003), I challenged the widely held view that ecosystem management (EM) is the only environmental strategy now possible. Ecosystem management may in some circumstances be the best of the policy options to deal with a particular environmental problem, but to describe it as the only choice available is not accurate, the article stated, [i]f ecosystem management does become inevitable, it will not be because of nonequilibrium or the absence of pristine systems, but because ecosystem management itself has altered systems past the point of no return. In The Myth of What Is Inevitable Under Management: A Response to Pardy, 21 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 315 (2004), Professor J.B. Ruhl objected to my objections and reasserted EM's status as the only legitimate environmental strategy. In this article, I reply to Professor Ruhl's objections. Advocates of EM are often adamant about the pre-eminence of their approach, but it is not easy to find the logical basis for their faith. EM is a choice. There are other choices too. Those who advocate EM should be expected to justify, coherently and persuasively, why it is the best of the choices - why it is necessary to place environmental futures in the hands of a professional elite empowered to shape conditions one ecosystem at a time as it sees fit according to its own technical or political judgment. discretionary nature of EM leads to utilitarian decisions based upon balancing of interests, and thus to incremental ecosystem change. EM prevents environmental law from becoming a coherent, predictable discipline. most effective excuse for arbitrary environmental decisions is to maintain at the outset that each case must be based on its own particular circumstances. In other words, the best way to acquire undemocratic control over environmental conditions is to insist that EM is inevitable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".