Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter deals with the evolving quest to attain environmental justice. It demonstrates that there are many facets and manifestations of environmental justice—a concept that sits at the junction of legal doctrine and anthropological realities. Amalgamating these two perspectives permits us to capture examples of such injustices and to analyse how law responds to them. This investigation into environmental justice adopts a three-pronged approach. The first section, ‘The meaning and origins of “environmental justice” ’, contemplates the emergence and rise of the environmental justice movement, as well as disruptions and innovations in the ontological sense of the concept itself. The second section, ‘Litigating environmental justice’, lays out concrete facets of environmental justice from a classic anthropocentric viewpoint in a schematically organized format. Four dimensions of environmental justice litigation are delineated. In the third part of the chapter, ‘Expanding environmental justice’, we consider more holistic or ecocentric applications of environmental justice, most notably Indigenous world views and the potential recognition of the rights of nature. We conclude that environmental justice is a moving target—it can mean different things to different people in different contexts, and is constantly adapting to new realities. As topics such as climate change or loss of biodiversity show, the human–nature relationship is, indeed, among the most pressing issues of our time. Environmental justice is, therefore, likely to gain even more importance in the coming decades, and further interdisciplinary research will be required to understand what that justice may entail in very concrete and variegated circumstances.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.010 |
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".