Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of second-generation ecopsychology has prompted a debate about which way the field should go. In this article I suggest that the choice is actually not between first-generation and second-generation paths but rather between radical and mainstream ones. By the term radical I do not mean extremist politics; I refer merely to the perception that our collective problems are of a deeply rooted or thoroughgoing nature and to the corresponding conviction that these will not be solved without significantly altering our thought and action. That ecopsychology is best understood as a radical ecological transformation of psychology can be seen by considering the various meanings of ecology, the implications of conceptualizing the psyche ecologically, and the challenges of being truly holistic. This understanding of the field reveals the first generation as a largely unrealized, inherently radical ecopsychology, the second generation as a largely denatured, mainstreamed ecopsychology. My position, then, is that ecopsychology will find good form, and resolve the first-generation/second-generation impasse, only if developed in a manner faithful to its radical nature. This will include directing ecopsychology away from psychology's historically individualistic praxis to the collective level of cultural and social engagement. I conclude this article with the idea that as a critical dialogue between ecology and psychology, ecopsychology shows the latter's anthropocentric, philosophical, methodological, and political economic biases. With this idea in mind, I offer some responses to the second-generation authors in the interest of furthering the dialogue about the development of the field.
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 | 0.027 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".