Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose the thesis that how an individual views the world – their worldview – is indicative of their acceptance of resource development. A definition of worldview is given and the significance of worldview to cultural and civilizational development is described. A methodology for testing the hypothesis is described and the results of a survey used to collect data are analyzed. At least for the approximately 300 respondents to the survey, there is a correlation between their responses to a series of worldview questions and their acceptance of resource development. Not surprisingly, the correlation becomes stronger as the homogeneity of the respondent group increases. The results of the survey analysis are then compared to a known resource development conflict in a case study to understand the potential significance of the results in a real-world setting. Design/methodology/approach A definition of worldview is given and the significance of worldview to cultural and civilizational development is described and evaluated. A methodology for testing the hypothesis is described and the results of a survey used to collect data are analyzed. Findings At least for the 300 respondents to the survey, there is a correlation between their responses to a series of worldview questions and their acceptance of resource development. The case study indicates that respondents can hold contradictory views depending upon the level of inquiry. Research limitations/implications The sample size is too small to draw any but the most preliminary of conclusions. However, the correlations are high enough to encourage additional work. Practical implications The research may point to a relatively simple means of understanding the level of acceptance of resource development among all parties to a development proposal. This will allow proponents to identify issues early enough to address them in the design and negotiation phases of project development. Social implications Resource developers and residents local to the proposed development are often talking at cross-purposes because the issues are not understood at a deep enough level. Once issues are understood at the deeper level of worldview opportunities for resolution may be identified. Originality/value As far as the researchers are aware this is the only published methodology for quantifying the acceptance of resource development. As identified by the case study, it is possible for a community to reject resource development for reasons that have little to do with resource development either in the particular or in the general.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".