Progressing a Sustainable-world: A Socio-ecological Resilience Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper identifies two approaches to how humanity might go about living sustainably, that is, for there to be a sustainable-world, namely; (a) the Reformist-approach, which is the current dominant sustainable-world approach consistent with mainstream sustainable-development, and (b) the Transformational-approach. The concept of socio-ecological-resilience is used to critique these two approaches to consider which is more likely to see the primary sustainable-world goal – the flourishing of life, incorporating human and ecological wellbeing, maintained over an indefinite time frame – achieved. The results suggest that Reformism is challenging to believe as a credible pathway for humanity. Instead, Reformism is shown, in a number of important respects, to undermine the resilience of the socio-ecological-systems on which human and ecological wellbeing depends. A more determined effort to fully implement the Reformist-approach will not solve these problems – the approach is, in a number of key respects, inherently resilience eroding and self-defeating. The Transformational-approach is instead shown to be more consistent with socio-ecological-resilience principles and is, in this respect, a preferred sustainable-world approach for humanity to pursue.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".