MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289925970 · doi:10.3138/cjh-57-2-2021-0101

Environmental Aspirations in an Unsettled Time: Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Club of Rome, and Canadian Environmental Politics in the 1970s

2022· article· en· W4289925970 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christopher Orr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsperityPoliticsVisionEnvironmental politicsEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmentalismTransformative learningSociologyClubConsumerismRhetoricPolitical economyEnvironmental movementPolitical scienceLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plagued by economic, energy, and national unity troubles, the 1970s were a tumultuous time in Canadian federal politics. Much less is known about Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s environmental aspirations. This article provides an account of the ideas, policies, and actions in Canadian federal politics 1968–1982. This account demonstrates that Canadian leaders aspired to a transformative environmental agenda, including a systems approach, a critique of economic growth in favour of alternative visions of prosperity, and a shift in societal values from consumerism and greed toward sufficiency and well-being. The onslaught of problems in the mid-1970s was a significant turning point in Canadian environmental politics. Although Trudeau did not discard his holistic environmental vision, he was unable to move from environmental rhetoric to action. This analysis contributes important insights into the pitfalls of navigating unsettled times such as the 1970s and has important implications for current prospects and opportunities for change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0580.049
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207