MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560293513

Autonomy in the Anthropocene? Libertarianism, Liberalism, and the Legal Theory of Environmental Regulation

2016· article· en· W2560293513 on OpenAlexaff
Jason MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropoceneAutonomyEnvironmental lawLibertarianismLaw and economicsLiberalismEnvironmental governanceCorporate governanceEnvironmental ethicsLawPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can there be autonomy in the Anthropocene? Libertarian environmental law scholar Bruce Pardy’s Ecolawgic: The Logic of Ecosystems and the Rule of Law argues that contemporary environmental law violates the right to autonomy and runs afoul of the rule of law. Pardy proposes an alternative model of environmental law premised on the logic of ecosystems and free markets. Pardy’s Ecolawgic suffers, however, from the very same conceptual infirmities that substantially undermine the real-world application of the free market paradigm on which Ecolawgic is largely based. Notwithstanding this critical flaw, Ecolawgic may be read as an aspirational model of environmental law and policy capable of disciplining the practice of environmental governance. The result – “autonomy in the Anthropocene” – gestures toward a pluralist and polycentric model of environmental regulation capable of enhancing our freedom to fashion a collective future in what is an existentially-threatening epoch of our own making.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.050
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207