A Proposal for the Political Economy of Green Criminology: Capitalism and the Case of the Alberta Tar Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Green criminology was proposed in 1990 to broaden the discipline and illustrate how environmental crime, deviance, and inequality can be interpreted through a critical lens influenced by political economic theory. Green criminology has yet to fulfill that theoretical promise. Instead, the political economic perspective on green criminology remains underdeveloped. The purpose of this study is to contribute to further development of a political economic green criminology by laying out the connection between ecological Marxism and green criminology. To carry out this task, we describe five propositions that criminologists must consider when developing a green criminology from a political economic perspective. Importantly, these propositions suggest that the environmentally destructive forces of capitalism are opposed to nature. That is, we argue that green criminologists must come to recognize that capitalism and nature cannot both survive over the long run, and in criminological terms, capitalism is therefore a crime against nature.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".