Ecological Integrity Discourses: Linking Ecology with Cultural Transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific discourses are rhetorical constructs for interpreting, articulating, and coordinating the bits of information and knowledge produced by science. Discourses also help scientific communities promote and advocate particular strategies for action. A review of the literature on ecological integrity has led us to identify four scientific discourses: (1) Wilderness-Normative, (2) Systemic-Normative, (3) Ecosystemic-Pluralistic, and (4) Transpersonal-Collaborative. Each of these discourses differs in the conceptual definition of ecological integrity, the role of science, and the assumptions regarding human-ecosystem relationships. The Transpersonal-Collaborative differs from the others in that it embraces the construction of personal and cultural meanings for ecological integrity. Each of the four discourses emphasizes different beliefs and worldviews, which, in turn, promote specific conservation practices. Acknowledging a diversity of discourses and recognizing personal commitments to particular discourses would increase the transparency of contextual decisions regarding the alternative conservation strategies suggested by different scientific communities.
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 | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".