MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132723453 · doi:10.4000/rccs.5217

Injustiças da sustentabilidade: Conflitos ambientais relacionados à produção de energia “limpa” no Brasil

2013· article· pt· W2132723453 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista crítica de ciências sociais/Revista crítica de ciências sociais · 2013
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDevelopment, Ethics, and Society
Canadian institutionsAdidas (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este trabalho discute as contradições existentes na implementação de projetos de energia “limpa”, a partir de quatro casos do contexto brasileiro: agrocombustíveis via cana‑de‑açúcar, hidrelétricas, parques eólicos e, por fim, energia nuclear. Todos geram inúmeros impactos sociais, ambientais e à saúde que caracterizam o que denominamos provocativamente “injustiças da sustentabilidade”. Assumimos que os conflitos ambientais existentes nos casos são inevitáveis em sociedades de mercado, cuja visão hegemônica de desenvolvimento econômico das corporações e, frequentemente, órgãos de governo é confrontada por populações atingidas e movimentos sociais. Portanto, consideramos estratégico reconhecer as injustiças ambientais como forma de articular as bases materiais da sustentabilidade com questões econômicas, sociais, culturais e filosóficas acerca da noção de progresso.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.277 · 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