Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article identifies and discusses the differences and similarities between environmental education (EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD). Three historic documents--the Belgrade Charter, the Tbilisi Declaration, and Agenda 21 -- provide goal statements, recommendations, and general descriptions for comparison. Other questions such as 'Is EE becoming ESD?' and the debate over what to call ESD are also addressed. The authors address and clarify some misconceptions inherent in the debate over definitions and the naming of ESD. The need to clarify and refine the broad concept of ESD is useful and necessary; however, the energy expended in other efforts--suggesting that specific terms and rhetoric related to sustainability concepts, which were originally translated from many different languages, should be accepted globally--is damaging and fruitless. The authors suggest that collaborative, locally appropriate action in both EE and ESD is more useful than an either-or debate over whose terminology should be adopted.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".