BUILDING CAPACITY TO LIVE AND WORK TOGETHER AT AN ECOVILLAGE IN SUPPORT OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY: A CASE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecovillages are important models of sustainable community and reflective of an alternative lived paradigm that values collectivism over individualism and cooperation over competition, in pursuit of bio-regionally-based, shared prosperity. In the face of growing threats to the predominant social and economic models of individualism, globalization, and unfettered growth (e.g. the decline of cheap oil), some experts have postulated that the greatest contribution that ecovillages can make is to help us understand of how to live ― smaller, slower and closer (Litfin 2013) - in other words, how to organize socially and economically in a post-carbon world. Through a qualitative case study of Whole Village ecovillage in Caledon, Ontario, this thesis explores the structures and processes through which ecovillagers build capacity for living and working together, and reveals the complex interplay between elements of community building, community dynamics and capacity building, which can either support or undermine the development of sustainable community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".