Sustainable Development and Ecological Modernization: Boundary Discourses between “Strong” and “Weak” Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concepts of “sustainable development” and “ecological modernization” are todays’ main discourses of action on the global environmental crisis. However, the quest of priorities interpretation within concepts is raised: there is a path dependence of the hegemonic worldview of techno-economic progress that was supposed to be overcome. The objective of this text is to analyse how this dependence influenced the evolution of such concepts and their operational proposals. Methodologically, the research is based on a literature review on discourses of these concepts. A typology of “strong” and “weak” discourses highlights the possibilities of “business as usual” in its operational interpretation as well as the ways to overcome it. The results show that the confrontation between them lead to a conceptual evolution of sustainable development and ecological modernization that merges into a common agenda: the governance of ambivalence between economic and social progress and environmental frontiers. The text concludes by proposing the existence of a discursive game between “survival” and “tranquillity”. This highlights an essential tension between environmental mitigation and institutional change that has accompanied the political agenda in the past 50 years. The resulting reflexive governance as a choice implies a broad participation in decision-making processes so that environmental trade-offs are collectively discussed, and responsibilities are shared. Notwithstanding, the article claims that this essential tension further implies questioning if governance may not also be a new discourse of appeasement and political unaccountability.
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 | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".