MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169566190 · doi:10.1177/0020715209105143

Ecologically Unequal Exchange, World Polity, and Biodiversity Loss

2009· article· en· W2169566190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John M. Shandra, Christopher Leckband, Laura A. McKinney, Bruce London

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCulture, Economy, and Development Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolityThreatened speciesConstruct (python library)Development economicsNeglectBiodiversityGeographyPolitical scienceEconomicsEcologyBiologyPoliticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There have been a few cross-national studies published that examine the determinants of threatened mammal species. However, these studies neglect insights from both ecologically unequal exchange theory and world polity theory. We seek to address this gap in the literature using cross-national data for a sample of 74 nations to construct negative binomial regression models with the number of threatened mammal species as the dependent variable. In doing so, we find substantial support for ecologically unequal exchange theory that flows of primary sector exports from poor to rich nations are associated with higher levels of threatened mammals in poor nations. We also find support for world polity theory that environmental non-governmental organizations are associated with lower levels of threatened mammals in poor nations. We conclude with a discussion of the findings, some policy implications, and possible directions for future research.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations136
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicCulture, Economy, and Development StudiesFrench-language works237,207