Ideas, Social Structure and the Compromise of Liberal 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
Recent scholarship on international norms neglects the question of why some norms get selected over others to define and regulate appropriate behavior. I introduce a `socio-evolutionary' explanation for the entrance and evolution of norms, which focuses on the interaction of ideas with the social structure they encounter. This explanation best accounts for the most significant shift in environmental governance over the last 30 years, the surprising convergence of environmental and liberal economic norms toward `liberal environmentalism'. The 1992 Earth Summit institutionalized these norms, which predicate environmental protection on the promotion and maintenance of a liberal economic order. Current scholarship on international environmental institutions largely ignores the normative underpinnings of responses to environmental problems owing to its preoccupation with form and function, and thus cannot explain the shift. The proposed explanation also outperforms an `epistemic communities' explanation in its paradigmatic case, challenging the presumed primacy of science in environmental governance. Its advantages are also shown over power, interest and existing ideational approaches to normative development.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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