MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991840655

Saving Indra’s Net: Buddhist Tools for Tackling Climate Change and Social Inequity

2008· article· en· W2991840655 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angela Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman architecture · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitClimate changePoliticsNothingGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceEnvironmentalismBuddhismEnvironmental movementAction (physics)Environmental ethicsCall to actionHistoryLawBusinessGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We had some sort of good news last December, when government leaders met at the Bali Summit on climate change. They agreed to make deep cuts to carbon emissions, albeit without specifying how deep. They also agreed to transfer clean technologies to developing countries and reward them for protecting their forests. It looks like governments have responded to the UN's call and mustered the political will to take action. What's more, even businesses appear to have come round to the need to protect the environment: they are recycling paper, planting trees, participating in carbon trading. And citizens and NGOs, of course, have been at the forefront of the call for action. But let's put all this in perspective. The issue of climate change has been around for some time: if we go back about half a century, we would find the New York Times editorial entitled How industry may change climate, dated 24 May 1953, that environmental scientist David Keith of the University of Calgary has referred to in a talk. (1) Earth Day has been around since 1970, but if we think back to Henry David Thoreau and the Transcendentalists, then the environmental movement has been around for even longer. Unfortunately, despite the long-standing awareness of the threat and the persistent call for action, nothing much has been done, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to issue a dire warning, (2) telling us that, effectively, we now have just seven years (eight when the report came out in 2007) to sort it all out before it's too late. So now the world's suddenly woken up to carbon trading, hybrid vehicles and technological solutions that include sending some kind of sunshading device into space to cool the planet. But is it enough? Here's some food for thought: * Suppose everyone switches to energy-saving lamps, but also buys new, big plasma TVs along with various electronic gadgets. Would the outcome be an increase or decrease in energy use? * Suppose car manufacturers all start making electric hybrids to Euro V standard, but millions more take to the road. Would the outcome be an increase or decrease in oil consumption? * Suppose we switch to biofuels, would we have the land and water resources to produce enough for both our cars and us? WWF Hong Kong commissioned a survey on climate change (3) and the results are set out below: * 92% of the people interviewed state that they are or somewhat concerned about climate change; * 87% agreed that individuals share a great responsibility to act and over 90% said they would buy energy efficient lamps (94%), turn off standby appliances (91%) or adjust the temperature of air-conditioning (91%); BUT * 69% didn't agree that utility tariffs should be raised to discourage wastage. You see, the way the world economy works is predicated on an externalisation of costs that makes it possible for goods and services to be sold at remarkably low prices. And unfortunately, those of us in the developed countries have become so accustomed to this that, as much as we want to do our bit for the environment, we don't want the effort to cramp our style. We don't want, for instance, to lose the convenience of using disposable cups, chopsticks and lunchboxes, even though they create waste and pollution everywhere, not to mention the energy and resources required to make them, to be used just once before being thrown into a landfill. The market is very smart; it knows that if it can come up with disposable alternatives that are 'green', we wouldn't think about changing our habit at all. I was at an 'eco-expo' recently where someone was selling disposable lunchboxes and mugs made from corn. He was very happy about the high oil prices, because they made his products more attractive to potential buyers, but I couldn't help thinking about all the water and land that are used to make disposal lunchboxes rather than grow crops to feed people. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.005

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman architectureSame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207