Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radical environmental activism is a distinct form of environmental politics that emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In Australia and other countries with large wilderness areas, such as the United States and Canada, it is historically grounded in the perceived failure of mainstream environmentalism to preserve wilderness and the emergence of eco-philosophies, such as deep ecology and ecofeminism, as both philosophical and political discourses. In the United Kingdom and Europe radical environmentalism has a less biocentric perspective and is guided by earlier protest movements that preceded it, such as anti-nuclear disarmament (Doherty et al. 2007: 806; Rootes 2003; Hay 2002: 4). Radical protests emerged first in the United States out of frustration with the perceived bureaucratising of mainstream environmental organisations such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, which began to adopt lobbying methods and policies that were more conservative and acceptable to government and industry, and their failure to achieve environmental goals (Doherty 1999: 278; Brulle 2000: 198; Carter 2007: 155). Earth First!, one of the first activist networks to explicitly adopt direct action, put it thus: are you tired of namby-pamby environmental groups? Are you tired of overpaid corporate environmentalists who suck up to bureaucrats and industry? Have you become disempowered by the reductionist approach of environmental professionals and scientists? (Earth First! n.d.)
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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".