Beyond environmental and ecological economics: Proposal for an \neconomic sociology of the environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vast majority of approaches in environmental economics attribute the current ecological crisis to the fact \nthat, from its inception, the industrial economic system was founded on premises that made no allowance for \nthe limits and regulatory functions of ecosystems. According to these approaches, we must therefore remedy \nthe historical error of dissociating the fields of economics from the natural sciences, notably by restoring the \nlinks between these two disciplines. Distinguishing themselves fromthe two historic approaches, environmental \neconomics and early ecological economics, the emerging institutionalist schools evoke not only the constructed \nnature of the environmental crisis (generally viewed as an objective fact by both traditional environmental \neconomists and ecological economists), but also the socially constructed nature of the economy and its \ninstitutions. An actionalist regulationist approach allows us to formalize this twofold construction and lays the \ngroundwork for a new economic sociology of the environment in which the technical modalities of ecological \nmodernization are studied in light of social relations,with the understanding that social relations are also affected \nby themateriality of the environmental crisis. This actionalist regulationist approach also lends itself to anticipating \nlikely trajectories in the future ecological modernization of economic institutions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".