Global Narratives and the Vulnerable Frontiers: A critical assessment of global climate change communication processes and traditional retentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary ecological issues compound environmental communications primary challenge of raising public consciousness and effectively mobilizing agency to mount robust systemic and practical actions. This fundamental challenge persists amidst capitalist enclosure that exacerbates anthropogenic climate change in a manner that indicts current models of macrosocietal planning (Steffen, 2011; Garnaut, 2008). Yet, we know little about our capacity to raise public consciousness and therefore incite reparatory actions in the environmental domain (Foxwell-Norton & Lester, 2017). This is most consequential in resource-dependent communities, the frontiers of climate impact. Critical aspects of life, including subsistence on rainfed agriculture, are manifestly undermined by current and projected climate change related impacts. Given the urgent existential implications of inaction or even inadequate action, this study seeks to optimize climate change communication in accordance with transformative and reparatory consciousness. It links the field of climate change communications with critical perspectives in Communication for Social Change and integrates the reparatory notion of climate justice to explicitly highlight the ethico-political terrain on which communicative actions must be directed to be commensurate with the distinct variability, high degree of permanence and multidimensionality of anthropogenic challenges. \nThe comparative and cross-cultural study is based on a representative purposive sample of 300 drawn from across 17 indigenous and traditional villages in Fiji, India and Belize that typifies heightened and disproportionate levels of vulnerability. It employs a socio-cultural elicitation and analytical framework to delineate and probe climate change perception, disposition and actions across 14 dimensions with keen attention to contextually variable group membership, alongside standard demographic variables. Probing these interpretive communities uniquely illuminates how discrete group membership structures climate disposition. It also highlights contextual intervention levels for knowledge improvement and mobilization generally and across specific dimensions, including religious and nature-oriented fatalism, discrete motives and potential sources of leadership.\nDefinitively, it offers globally relevant recommendations for optimizing communication processes in resource-dependent communities across three pathways: coping, resilience and transformation. This is premised on comparative analysis of the findings of the socio-cultural elicitation process against climate change communications general acceptance of core communication principles regarding risk perception, message construction, resonance, motive, intervention levels and engagement frames.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".