Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Frontiers, Michael Redclift examines the relationship between nature and society in frontier areas—contested zones in which rival versions of civil society vie with one another, often over the definition and management of nature itself. Drawing on his own fieldwork and extensive archival research, Redclift presents five cases in which civil societies emerged in frontier areas either to manage common property or to legitimize private holdings: common-pool resource management in the Spanish Pyrenees, European settlement on the forest frontier in nineteenth-century Canada, conflicts over land and water resources in coastal Ecuador, Mayan civil unrest in the Yucatán peninsula, and the encroachment of tourism on the Mexican Caribbean coast. Redclift describes a dialectical process in frontier regions in which human societies and their environments influence and illuminate one another: the frontier can be seen as a crucible in which both nature and civil institutions develop and "co-evolve." In each of the five case studies, he argues, migration and land settlement gave rise to ideologies of nature that reflected not only the social and ethnic characteristics of the settlers but also the the effects of market forces on the natural environment. In most of these areas the natural environment was transformed by the pressure of the market, especially global markets. Resistance to market pressure created new avenues for political activity and the representation of cultural identity. Frontiers deepens and broadens our understanding of the role of the frontier, which, Redclift argues, needs to be considered within a global context that is of continuing importance today.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.229 | 0.073 |
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".