Glaciers and society: attributions, perceptions, and valuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As icons of a world set in motion by human action, glaciers are often highlighted as quintessential evidences of global climate change. Although there is a general agreement among scientists that glaciers around the world are receding, much of the discussions on the subject tend to be oriented toward technological methodologies. Yet, as elements of the landscape, glaciers are strongly integrated to various societies around the world in ways that exceed their role as provider of fundamental sources of water. The relation between glaciers and societies is therefore marked by processes of attribution, perception, and valuation by local and distant actors. As a consequence, as they recede, glaciers often become the loci of interactions between actors of various scales. But besides melting, glaciers also transform from being objects of local to national and global concern. This is particularly true when esthetic and economic values are assigned to glaciers. Real and perceived changes in the form, reach and out‐flow of water impact the local populations, and shape the kinds of action undertaken by communities, local actors, state authorities, and international organizations. The paper concludes by arguing that place‐based research is fundamental to discuss a global environmental phenomenon such as glacier recession. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:793–808. doi: 10.1002/wcc.315 This article is categorized under: Climate, History, Society, Culture > Ideas and Knowledge Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases and Analogies Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Sociology/Anthropology of Climate Knowledge
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".