Nature and society through the lens of resilience: toward a human-in-ecosystem perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction There is a long history in several disciplines of trying to understand the relationship between ecological and social systems. The issue is often glossed as the nature/culture and environment/society dichotomies. Glacken (1967) has provided an extensive and wide-ranging survey of the ways in which the relationship between nature and society have been conceptualized within Western thought up to the eighteenth century. With the Age of Enlightenment, humans were extracted from the environment. The separation of nature and society became a foundational principle of Western thought and provided the organizational structure for academic departments. Since that time, Western thought has oscillated between positions in which nature and society were treated as distinct entities, and one in which articulations between the two were examined. One of the early attempts to provide a model of natural system–society articulation was the one constructed by Karl Marx in the nineteenth century (Ingold, 1980; Wolf, 1982; Harvey, 1996). The discussion of the relationship between nature and society continued during the twentieth century in many different disciplines. There has been the human ecology of Park (1936), the cultural ecology of Julian Steward (1955), the ecological anthropology of Gregory Bateson (1973, 1979), Netting (1974, 1986, 1993), Vayda and McCay (1975), the ideas of Carl Sauer (1956) and other human geographers, the environmental history of William Cronon (1983, 1995) and Donald Worster (1977, 1988), the ethnoecology of Conklin (1957) and others (Toledo, 1992; Nazarea, 1999) and the emerging political ecology of Greenberg and Park (1994), Peet and Watts (1996) and others.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".