MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048787132 · doi:10.1504/ier.2001.053886

Doing environmental justice research: the challenges of operationalising conceptions of the 'environment' in field research interviews

2001· article· en· W2048787132 on OpenAlex
Cheryl Teelucksingh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInterdisciplinary Environmental Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental justiceCredibilityOperationalizationEconomic JusticeSociologyEmpirical researchField (mathematics)Environmental studiesField researchOrder (exchange)Environmental ethicsEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceSocial scienceEpistemologyBusinessLawEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on sixteen field research interviews in the community of Parkdale in Toronto (Canada), this paper examines the challenges of operationalizing broad conceptions of the "environment" as defined by the American environmental justice literature. I argue that, without an established environmental justice movement in communities such as Parkdale, a gap exists between environmental justice theory and environmental justice empirical reality. Based on the findings of the interviews, I conclude that in order to address the gap and to ensure the empirical credibility of environmental justice research, researchers need to be willing to further redefine environmental justice concepts, such as operational definitions of the "environment".

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.269 · 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