Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization, specialization, and intensification have transformed the global food system, generating material flows and impacts that span multiple scales and levels, presenting novel governance challenges. Many argue for a transition toward a sustainable food system, although the scope and specific goals are fiercely contested. Theory and method is needed to evaluate competing normative claims and build legitimacy. In this dissertation Vermont serves as a case study to investigate how environmental and economic flows impact regional governance, focusing on efforts to manage agricultural phosphorus to achieve water quality goals. A material flow account is developed to estimate phosphorus flows embedded in commodities flowing in and out of Vermont’s agricultural system from 1925-2012. The results indicate a net imbalance of phosphorus flows for the entire period, leading to the accumulation of legacy phosphorus in soils that constitutes a long-term threat to water quality. Agricultural intensification and land cover change during this period led to increased phosphorus use efficiency, livestock density, and dependency on imported feed, the largest source of phosphorus entering Vermont since the 1980s. The evidence of persistent imbalance calls into question the effectiveness of current nonpoint source pollution policy. A critical investigation of nutrient management planning policy reveals several shortcomings: pasture is frequently excluded; many phosphorus flows that cross the farm-gate are not captured; critical information on soil phosphorus levels and runoff risk is not collected in a manner that facilitates regional governance. The integration of nutrient management plans and mass-balances is proposed as an alternative approach that can increase accountability, encourage efficiency, and facilitate management and governance, albeit within constraints imposed by Vermont’s position in a globalized market for agricultural commodities. The empirical and policy analysis is complemented by a theoretical investigation that starts from the observation that a sustainability transition inevitably entails tradeoffs amongst competing normative goals. Navigating these tradeoffs is complicated by mismatch between the reach of governance institutions and the spatial and temporal dimensions of the challenges they face. This investigation contributes to understanding how legitimacy and consensus are constructed in the context of competing normative claims and multi-level governance. It considers deliberative democracy as a means for evaluating normative claims and arriving at a shared, legitimate basis for social action. An instrumental perspective on deliberation is contrasted with a deeper notion that sees deliberation as constitutive of sustainability at a local-to-global level. A conclusion grounds this analysis by drawing out the ways in which deliberation can inform Vermont’s efforts to govern its agriculture, water quality, and economic development, sowing the seeds for a sustainability transition.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".