Examining the Role of Substantive Justice in Planning Controversial Facilities
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
This article explores substantive justice within the context of planning controversial facilities. Using qualitative inquiry into three cases of planning waste incineration plants in Canada, this study goes beyond distributional understanding of environmental justice and investigates the role of substantive justice in environmental planning processes. The article concludes that substantive justice accounts are different from those related to distributional concerns, and play an important role in formulating actors' positions towards the proposed project. Substantive justice is associated with the fairness of the final outcome of the project regardless of its location, and has to do with the beliefs about different waste management options, and more specifically, about their environmental performance and influence on shaping the future of waste management systems. The findings of this research confirm the plurality of environmental justice accounts that go beyond the distributional concerns, and suggest that the focus of environmental discourse in waste management planning may be shifting from waste distribution to its prevention.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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