MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133044823 · doi:10.1162/glep.2006.6.2.85

Shop Right: American Conservatisms, Consumption, and the Environment

2006· article· en· W2133044823 on OpenAlexaff
Nadivah Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Environmental Politics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Design and Development
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyTypologyMainstreamConsumption (sociology)PrudenceStewardship (theology)Environmental ethicsSociologyPolitical economyPolitical sciencePoliticsLawSocial scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prevailing American conservative views regarding consumption and the environment have evolved in ways incongruous to a past intellectual legacy. As the world's most voracious consumer and greatest power, the United States possesses a vast global footprint; this historically unprecedented combination of appetite and might translates into both potential and peril. Given that the repercussions of dominant American perspectives are not just domestic, but global, it is imperative to reflect on American conservative ideology. This article begins with an examination of a past intellectual heritage, which extolled virtues such as conservation, prudence and stewardship. It then examines an array of contemporary conservatisms by laying out a typology of views. As a whole, the spectrum shows considerable ideological elasticity. Of much interest is an array of green outliers within the typology, for these nascent, diverse voices indicate potential synergy with mainstream environmental goals, although not without caveats. Finally, the future direction of conservative thought with respect to consumption and the environment is assessed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Environmental PoliticsSame topicSustainable Design and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207