MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intercontinental Transport of Dust: Science and Policy, pre-1800s to 1967

2011· article· en· W2321305211 on OpenAlexafffund
Ken Wilkening

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and History · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsSustainabilityMultidisciplinary approachEarth system scienceEnvironmental planningCorporate governancePoliticsEarth scienceEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceBusinessEcologyLawGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract I begin with this paper a history of science and policy related to intercontinental transport of air pollution, starting with long-range atmospheric transport of dust from the pre-1800s to 1967. Dust is spotlighted because it was the first trace substance ('pollutant') recognised to travel intercontinental and global distances and because long-range transport in some locations of the world was eventually seen to be associated with large-scale environmental problems. Based on data gathered from primary and secondary written source materials, I conclude that, relative to sustainability, the outstanding achievement between 1800 and 1967 was development of an Earth-spanning conceptual structure that fused scientific knowledge, environmental ethics and options for political action, what I call a dust-related 'Earth system problem-framework'. Specifically, scientists outlined a world dust-system framework with a land ethic at its core. The arduous path to this accomplishment highlights the large-scale, long-term, multidisciplinary effort required to create holistic, whole-Earth conceptual structures for global environment governance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and HistorySame topicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207