Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, I advance the idea of ecopsychology as a form of decolonial praxis. If, as I suggest, ecopsychology is a project to overcome the fracturing of reality into the separate regions of Psyche, Nature, and Society, then we must ask how these regions became so disconnected in the first place. The answer I offer here is that these divisions are inherent in modern capitalist civilization, which survives to this day only through continuous processes of disconnection and colonization. It follows that decolonization is the deepest context for developing ecopsychology's theory and practice aimed at reintegrating Psyche, Nature, and Society. In order not to conflate non-Indigenous or settler decolonization with Indigenous decolonization, I introduce the term “lifeworld decolonization” for the former. This distinction allows us to recognize the complex overlap between these two forms of decolonization, which makes room for solidarity, while granting a specific primacy to Indigenous decolonization and underscoring how non-Indigenous peoples have historically benefited from colonialism. Indeed, turning toward the topic of Indigenous decolonization forces an “unsettling” of ecopsychology, which may lead the field toward a more coherent, mature, reflexive, and historically relevant understanding of itself. In the course of my argument, I engage with the ontological and decolonial turns in social theory in order to demonstrate what the transformation of Psychology into ecopsychology might involve when the field both learns from and commits itself toward Indigenous decolonization.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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".