The Potential and Limits of Progressive Neopluralism: A Comparative Study of Forest Politics in Coastal British Columbia and South East New South Wales during the 1990s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 1990s the management of forests in British Columbia (Canada) and New South Wales (Australia) underwent many changes. For most of the decade the governments in both of these political jurisdictions were more socially and environmentally aware than their immediate predecessors. They were, however, far short of what many environmental and social activists desired. The New Democratic Party in British Columbia, led to government by Mike Harcourt, and the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales led by Bob Carr, may both be described as ‘centre-left/light-green’ in their political persuasions. This paper develops the regulation approach to explore the achievements, the potential and the limitations of these governments in the area of forest politics. It is argued that these governments implicitly adopted a progressive neopluralist approach to forest politics and attempted to manage environmental conflict by securing the agreement of many diverse interest groups. The experience of these two governments raises questions about the potential and limitations not just of the particular governments, but of a progressive neopluralist political strategy to achieve sustainable forest management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".