Saving Our “Common Home” Through Them: A Critical Analysis of the “For Our Common Home” Campaign in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent years have witnessed a fast-growing wave of new social collaborative mobilizations and demands for a more aggressive fight against climate change, as well as climate justice around the world. Such climate justice solidarity is gaining momentum not only in the North-South axis, but also among non-traditional climate justice entities such as religious groups. This article, based on the case analysis of one of those collaborative and solidarity struggles known as the “For our Common Home” campaign, contributes to the development of a theoretical framework for understanding the religious motives for addressing climate in terms of integral ecology and ecological conversion. Implemented by Development and Peace-Canada, this multi-year faith-inspired climate justice initiative aimed at pushing Canadian companies operating in the Amazon to be more environmentally responsible in their activities in the Amazonian basin, and to respect the voices of local Indigenous environmental activists. However, as I argue in this article, this form of climate justice activism is based on the assumption that global North institutions' solidarity with persecuted climate justice activists and communities in the global South can bear positive results for the fight against global warming. Using the combined research approach involving both direct participatory observation and participation in virtual meetings and events, we explore the following questions: How can a faith-inspired movement like Development and Peace-Caritas Canada, through a religious environmental campaign involving Indigenous communities in Canada and Brazil, participate in the development of social cohesion, and the advancement of social justice? What change can the campaign's solidarity with persecuted climate justice activists and communities in the Amazon bring to the climate fight against climate 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".