Re-establishing Justice as a Pillar of Ecological Economics Through Feminist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological economics has long claimed distributive justice as a central tenet, yet discussions of equity and justice have received relatively little attention over the history of the field. While ecological economics has aspired to be transdisciplinary, its framing of justice is hardly pluralistic. Feminist perspectives and justice frameworks offer a structure for appraising the human condition that bridges social and ecological issues. Through a brief overview of the uptake of feminist perspectives in other social sciences, this paper outlines an initial justice-integration strategy for ecological economics by providing both a point of entry for readers to the vast and diverse field of feminist economic thought, as well as a context for the process of disciplinary evolution in social sciences. We also critique ecological economics' toleration of neoclassical mainstays such as individualism that run counter to justice goals. The paper concludes with a call for ecological economics practitioners and theorists to learn from other social sciences and elevate their attention to justice, to open possibilities for more dynamic, inter- disciplinary, community-oriented, and pluralistic analysis.
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 | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".