Understanding anti-environmentalism : content analyzing the blogosphere for insight into opposition to environmentalism
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmentalism, like any other noteworthy social movement, has been met with some resistance. Opposition to this movement has come both from the general public and from organized anti-environmental groups. The closeness, or lack thereof, between the organized groups' messages and those of the public has yet to be clearly defined. Given that organized groups are often more capable of getting their message out to a larger audience, it is important to know to what extent the thoughts and ideas they put forward are representative of those of the public. Without examining this relationship, responding to anti-environmental sentiment in the public will be difficult.In an effort to understand opposition towards environmentalism in the general public, this project examined the blogosphere. Anti-environmental weblog (blog) postings were subjected to a content analysis in order to reveal common themes present within them. The specific focus of the analysis was on the manner in which environmentalism was portrayed by its opponents, as opposed to points of factual disagreement. Comparisons were then made to the arguments of the organized anti-environmentalism factions, and a more complete picture of the opposition toward environmentalism was constructed. From this basis, recommendations for a response to anti-environmental sentiment from leaders in the area of sustainable development were given.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it