State—Capital Relations in Voluntary Environmental Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the environment and society is an increasingly prevalent theme in the study of contemporary social systems, with research often focused on the interactions between capital, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and the state. Ecological Marxist and ecological modernizationist lines of enquiry, for example, both presume that close relations between states and environmental organizations will increase the likelihood of substantive state environmental action. Both also highlight the central role of state—capital relations in environmental transformation, although the latter views this relationship as potentially facilitative, while the former accords a much greater likelihood for environmental degradation resulting from close state—capital relations. Using interview data from a case study of natural resource management in Alberta, the article examines the role of state—capital relations in voluntary environmental improvement efforts. The findings suggest that capital sectors each have a distinct relationship with the state, neither of which abides closely with ecological modernizationist or ecological Marxist conceptions of state—capital relations. The natural resource regulatory regime itself, furthermore, has proven to constrain voluntary environmental improvement efforts, and the marginalization of ENGOs in the environmental policy community has limited the political consideration of alternative development paths. Finally, complexities within the state itself are identified, illustrating significant differences in incentives, costs and relative power among state bureaucratic agencies with the ability to mobilize institutional reform, which then serves to restrict environmental advancement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".