MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165962783 · doi:10.1017/s0008423902778347

Reconciling Environmentalism and the Left: Perspectives on Democracy and Social Justice in British Columbia's Environmental Movement

2002· article· en· W2165962783 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Debra J. Salazar, Donald K. Alper

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicQ Methodology Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmentalismEgalitarianismDemocracyEnvironmental justiceCommunitarianismInsiderPoliticsSocial movementPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsMeaning (existential)Environmental movementSociologyLawLiberalismPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines how political ideas of environmentalists support as well as impede relations between the environmental movement and other progressive movements. This requires examination of the role and meaning of social justice and democracy in the discourse of environmentalism. This study focuses such an examination on a sample of environmental activists in British Columbia. Q methodology is used to discern patterns of association between particular sets of environmental ideas, and beliefs and values related to democracy and social justice. The authors identify four environmental/political perspectives: alienated ecocentrism, civic communitarianism, insider preservationism and green egalitarianism. These perspectives share a perception of justice focused on fair democratic procedures. Fairness is linked to inclusion and equal treatment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0270.026
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicQ Methodology ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207