Environmental Justice, Popular Struggle and Community Development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental Justice, Popular Struggle and Community Development provides a global view of how these ways of achieving change can reinforce each other. It is comprised of case examples from around the world, including Canada, Palestine, South Africa, Ireland, Slovakia, India and Colombia. From a political economy theoretical framework, the book analyses environmental struggles in terms of actors, power, interests and strategies, including for building new alternatives. The analysis uses tools drawn from Marxism, ecofeminism, political ecology and anticolonialism among a range of emancipatory schools. Orientating the topic, the editors, Anne Harley and Eurig Scandrett, describe how community development initially began seriously to grapple with environmental issues following Local Agenda 21, which encouraged the involvement of civil society in transitioning to sustainability. However, they point out that, at the same time, the discourse of participation and stakeholder involvement was being manipulated, with insincere consultation processes hiding the interests of the wealthy and powerful. They state, for example:
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it