Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earth Day 2000 is a symbolic date. Aside from being the first Earth Day of the new millennium, for thirty years, people have marked April 22 as a day to honor the sacredness, complexity and beauty of the Earth. Since 1970, environmentalists of various stripes and persuasions have set aside this one day of the year as a symbol of hope for the future. As Green researchers, policymakers and advocates, we rely on hope and dreams. We dream of a future filled with cultures of concern, and concrete expressions of intra/intergenerational equity and justice - a world where our children and their children's children are demonstrating a life of peace and harmony with each other, other peoples and the natural world. But, in looking to the future, we need to remember past patterns, processes and mindsets. We cannot construct futuristic ecologies without first exploring our personal, sociopolitical and ecological histories, and honoring our past. In a technocratic, Western world where new is better, and the old is relegated to the waste paper bin, we need to begin by reusing and recycling past concepts and visions. Though, such attempts will not come without a struggle. For years, I have had to endure great fits of laughter from some colleagues for suggesting that, for example, alternative transportation in a developed country actually might include horse and buggy. My position is that if there are Mennonites who can retain this element of the past even in the face of modernist obstacles, why should we not encourage a future of horses and stables in cases where this is possible however bizarre this may seem? My godmother who was born in 1899 once described to me how life use to be. As a young child growing up in Montreal, she told me of a time when she use to ride to school in the mornings, joyfully waving to other children from her carriage. She spoke of the bonds that her family had with their horses, and the community webs that were created by this relatively environmentally-friendly and socially-cohesive mode of transportation. For some communities, such a long forgotten and romantic concept may be a real, viable and pragmatic policy option. Indeed, if we abide by strong animal rights measures, as living beings; horses would be more energy efficient and ecological than most current forms of transportation. Yes, again, I recognize that I am putting forth one unconventional policy option! This said, embedded within the above example is a question for those who are opposed to the idea: how socially and individually resistant do we feel towards past ideas and techniques? For the most part, the Western system rejects or forgets the old, the past and rushes for the latest packaged goods and services. It separates the generations - the old from the new, allows our children to wrongly learn that new means better, and in the world of academia, calls for more up-to-date, cutting-edge research (how many times have you heard that a book is outdated?). This system insists upon new news and fresh manufactured material. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".