MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984083918 · doi:10.1177/1086026619885111

Invisible Hand or Ecological Footprint? Comparing Social Versus Environmental Impacts of Recent Economic Growth

2019· article· en· W2984083918 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization & Environment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegrowthEcological footprintCorporate governanceGross domestic productEcological economicsConsumption (sociology)Distribution (mathematics)EconomicsSustainabilityDevelopment economicsPublic economicsNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementEconomic growthEcologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines changes in some key indicators among 66 countries on six continents over a 56-year period, to compare the power of economic growth to improve human health and income distribution with its tendency to degrade the natural environment. The results indicate that growth depletes and pollutes nature far more than it benefits society. This suggests that public policy should shift toward enhancement of individual and social well-being in ways more direct and effective, and less ecologically damaging, than reliance on overall growth in gross domestic product. I illustrate this implication with a degrowth scenario for the United States to 2050 that draws on the empirical results for the period 1961 to 2016. And I consider certain reforms in the management and governance of organizations to implement such a scenario.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it