All Dressed Up with Nowhere to Go: The Discourse of Ecological Modernization in Alberta, Canada*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous passons en revue la politique intégrée de gestion des ressources de l'Alberta pour mettre en lumière la compétence du gouvernement provincial pour refaçonner de manière discursive la relation entre un développement des ressources naturelles et une protection de l'environnement pour conserver sa légitimité tout en évitant une restructuration institutionnelle. Cette étude montre que la « modernisation écologique » consiste en deux volets indépendents qui ne conduisent pas nécessairement au même résultat final. Alors que des cas de réforme écologique peuvent exister, la « modernisation ecologique » decrit aussi un discours dominant qui peut faire dévier la critique en étant suffisamment ambigu pour que des écarts entre une politique énoncée et une mise en application soient difficiles à tracer. We review Alberta's integrated resource management policy to highlight the provincial government's ability to discursively reframe the relationship between natural resource development and environmental protection to maintain legitimacy while avoiding institutional restructuring. This study indicates that Ecological Modernization consists of two independent features that do not necessarily lead to the same end point. While instances of ecological reform may exist, Ecological Modernization also describes a dominant discourse that can deflect criticism, while at the same time is sufficiently ambiguous that gaps between stated policy and implementation are difficult to trace.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".