Ecologically Unequal Exchange in Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue originated during planning for the 2008 American Sociological Association (ASA) meeting. The Political Economy of the World-System, Environment and Technology, and Marxist Sociology sections cosponsored a series of panels. These three sections of the ASA complement each other on many fronts and offer an impressive array of theory and research that grapples with many of the most pressing issues confronting the world today. It was collectively decided that the first co-editor of this special collection organize a panel that focused on ecologically unequal exchange, an emerging perspective that is logically situated at the nexus of the three sections and their complementary orientations. Works within this emerging perspective consider how the structure of the world-economy influences unequal material-ecological exchanges, often per petuating global inequalities and uneven environmental impacts, most of which disproportionately harm the environment and well-being of populations in lesser-developed countries. The resulting panel at the national meeting was very successful, stimulating much discussion and interest in building upon the engagement. The panelists and their presentations were methodologically diverse and theoretically rich, but with a common topical thread that highlighted the intersections of the three sections. Hence, this special issue consists of articles by the panelists at the meeting as well as contributions by other social scientists who significantly contribute to the study of ecologically unequal exchange in comparative perspective. The first two articles theoretically situate ecologically unequal exchange, establishing links with various traditions, articulating the goals of studies in this area, revealing the important social relationships to investigate, identifying the social forces of environmental degradation, and raising key considerations International Journal of Comparative Sociology © The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav http://cos.sagepub.com Vol 50(3–4): 211–214 DOI: 10.1177/0020715209105139
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".