MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998983897 · doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.818301

Enough of that already: sufficiency-based challenges to high-carbon consumption in Canada

2013· article· en· W1998983897 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anders Hayden

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Politics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)LegitimationPromotion (chess)EconomicsNatural resource economicsBusinessProduction (economics)AgricultureElectricityEconomic policyPolitical scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While dominant responses to climate change aim to decouple economic growth and emissions, a sufficiency approach challenges infinitely growing production and consumption. Sufficiency can target different levels. At the macro level, it questions endless economic growth, but it has advanced further at the micro level, where it challenges specific commodities, practices, or sectors. Relatively easy targets for politicians and others wanting to signal ecological concern include plastic bags and bottled water. The idea of ‘less’ has also progressed, paradoxically, when it contributes to a broader growth agenda. Examples in Canada include efforts to reduce food miles, which can expand the local agricultural economy, and state promotion of reduced electricity consumption to ensure power-system reliability, upon which overall economic growth depends. These cases suggest that sufficiency may, for the foreseeable future, find its best prospects in limited circumstances where it can be linked to the legitimation or, ironically, the economic imperatives of states.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental PoliticsSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207