Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social, cultural and spiritual (SCS) needs and values in relation to the natural world have been recorded and reported for all societies in historical time. While social or material needs may appear to be plainly utilitarian, they are generally grounded in the worldviews and values of specific peoples. In other words, how a forest is perceived, what foods are deemed edible, what other products are extracted from it, how much is extracted and during which season, and whether parts or all of that forest are valued in a sacralised sense, tend to be culturally determined. Values can be defined as ‘the preferences, principles and virtues that we (up)hold as individuals or groups’ (Chan et al. 2012, p. 10). In turn, those ‘values are assumed to influence decisions’ on environmental uses (including needs) (Dietz et al. 2005) (Chapter 11 also overviews values as applied to public participation). Understanding in a broad sense the past and current SCS needs and values of both majority and minority population groups globally, and possible drivers of change, are critical in a world of more than seven billion people who are consuming ecological services 1.5 times faster than can be renewed by the planet’s self-regulatory systems (Global Footprint Network, 2010). This chapter surveys the SCS needs and values of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) and of majority societies, and examines why they are important. The impact of the capitalist mode of production on SCS values in general is considered. The safeguards for SCS needs and values, and the metrics used, in some intergovernmental and international processes are summarized. In a final section, the successes and challenges of protecting or sustainably managing the remaining natural landscapes infused with SCS needs and values is examined.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".