MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978850472 · doi:10.1068/c1338j

Reaching the Limits? Developed Country Engagement with Sustainable Development in a Challenging Conjuncture

2013· article· en· W1978850472 on OpenAlexaff
James Meadowcroft

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Government and Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersWorld Bank Group
KeywordsSustainable developmentNormativeEarth SummitPoliticsSustainabilitySummitEquity (law)Environmental ethicsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental qualityEnvironmentalismPolitical economyDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsSociologyLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers engagement with sustainable development in the rich industrialized countries since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, focusing particularly on environmental limits. It argues that while the idea of ‘limits’ is in one sense ubiquitous, contemporary societies are only beginning to come to terms with its implications. The discussion considers different understandings of environmental limits, explores the example of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change, reflects on fruitful ways to approach environmental limits, and references recent ‘green growth’ and ‘green economy’ initiatives associated with Rio+20. It suggests that normative judgments are essential to give social and political meaning to environmental limits, and notes the importance of defining the positive social goods that are to be secured through the recognition of such limits. The paper particularly emphasizes the importance of securing absolute reductions in critical environmental loadings, because this is the side of the issue which tends to be obscured when sustainable development is reduced to a ‘quality-of-life’ agenda and severed from concerns with global equity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning C Government and PolicySame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207