Bibliographic record
Abstract
When discussing the effects of resource extraction in rural communities, academics commonly focus on specific and concrete impacts that fall nicely into the categories of environmental, economic, and social – for example, effects on water quality, jobs, and roads. A less common way of conceptualising effects of extractive industries, but more akin to the way in which rural residents discuss and experience the complex set of effects, is changes to way of life. A growing literature explores effects on ‘wellbeing’ and ‘the good life’ as important determinants of responses to development projects, and as necessary considerations for policies regulating such development. One approach to conceptualising the good life – Aristotle's ideas of eudaimonia (human flourishing) and the pursuit of eudaimonia (perfectionism) – remains underdeveloped as a means for characterising how rural residents respond to natural resource extraction. We use the example of unconventional gas development (UGD) to illustrate how definitions of human flourishing – and perfectionist pursuit of that flourishing – strongly motivate support for and opposition to a contentious extractive industry in the rural communities where development is occurring or is likely to occur. This occurs through commitments to: a rural way of life, retaining local population, beauty, peace, and/or quiet. Approximately fifty interviews across six US and three Canadian communities support this vital role for conceptions of human flourishing. The import of human flourishing to members of the public, and of them pursuing that flourishing through perfectionism, has crucial implications for communication and policy related to extractive development. Policy makers need to consider how the public's definitions for flourishing shape their support/opposition, and not just to focus on the economic and environmental impacts commonly discussed in policy discourse.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".