Civil Society, public spheres and the ecology of environmentalism in four Fraser Valley communities : Burnaby, Richmond, Langley and Abbotsford
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines four communities in the Lower Fraser Basin (Burnaby, Richmond, Langley and Abbotsford), as a case study for examining the "ecology of environmentalism". I have compared two "low environmentalism" communities (Richmond and Abbotsford), and two which have a significantly larger field of environmental groups (Burnaby and Langley). The research included 43 interviews (37 with leaders of grassroots environmental groups and a mailout questionnaire which was sent to one leader of each of the 71 groups in the four municipalities (64% response rate). Together this research amounts to 82% coverage of all the environmental groups in the four municipalities. Using this data, I argue that the differences between the municipal areas are not very well explained either in terms of the themes in Resource Mobilisation Theory, in either of the major theories of social movements and the State, or in terms of standard demographic variables associated with environmentalism (community size, gender, income, education, ethnicity, or occupation). I have therefore used the themes of "civil society" and "public spheres" (Allario 1995; Calhoun 1996; Cohen and Arato; Fraser 1992; Habermas 1989; Walzer 1991) to compare the four municipalities. I suggest that the more holistic approach especially as proposed by Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato (1992), provides a better way of analyzing both the actions and the ecology of environmental groups in the Lower Fraser Basin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".