The Manfred Max-Neef Thinking: A Deep Economy Rooted in the Eco-philosophical Perspective of the Deep Ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we advance preliminary theoretical reflections on Manfred Max Neef’s thoughts related to the human scale development. From an and transdisciplinary perspective, we argue that Max-Neef moves beyond the field of Ecological Economics towards developing a Deep Economic framework, linked to the Deep Ecology framework outlined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss. We elaborate our argument around two dimensions: a) Biocentrism, based on the conviction that ecology is not limited to reflections and actions toward a balanced and healthy environment to achieve humans´ well-being, but involves all forms of life and ecosystems. b) The intrinsic value of life, a complex idea that Max-Neef expressed in his conviction that the “reverence for life” cannot be solely subjected to human economic activity or interest. Biocentrism and the intrinsic value of life must be approached from a transdisciplinary and organic perspective that demands a dialogue between science-academics, non-combining reason with intuition, ethics, and beauty. this way, these two dimensions become principles that articulate Max-Neef´s Deep Economy, different to other critical approaches in the field of economics.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".