MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323317919 · doi:10.3390/su15054581

When Aging and Climate Change Are Brought Together: Fossil Fuel Divestment and a Changing Dispositive of Security

2023· article· en· W4323317919 on OpenAlexafffund
Darlene Himick

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDivestmentInvestment (military)PensionClimate changeBusinessSocial securityEconomicsMarket economyFinanceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pension funds have become major targets for the incorporation of climate change into their investment decisions. Recently, divestment from carbon intensive companies or industries has been the object of a wave of campaigns directed at these institutional investors. This paper uses Foucault’s dispositive of security to investigate the decisions of one organization, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which in 2021 divested from seven oil sands companies. Conceptualizing divestment within a security dispositive helps us build theory which understands divestment within existing security-oriented arrangements. It shows how changes build upon the existing dispositive, and that by looking to existing governing arrangements we can see elements that act as operators to change their direction and emphasis. In the case of pension fund divestment, risk is the operator that both sustains the investment function and also tilts the arrangement towards climate change. In these existing arrangements lay the ingredients for future social relations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207