Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper considers the position of “inexhaustibility” as shared by many economists and businessmen. This view assumes that, in the long term, shortages in natural resources will be compensated by economic growth and the development of technology. The “shallow” environmentalism that is set against this position is concerned with the problems of global warming and pollution and defends the conservation of natural resources solely for utilitarian purposes. It also implies no severe reduction in standards of living and does not welcome radical social change. Of the four radical forms of environmentalism, the most influential outside of academic circles is deep ecology where the well-being and prosperity of human and non-human life on Earth has an independent value and can be achieved once the population is significantly reduced. The second trend, ecofeminism, blames the destruction of the environment on androcentric dualism. Man is associated with culture as immaterial, rational and abstract; woman is associated with nature as material, emotional, and individual. The third movement, social ecology and ecomarxism, share the key principles of the supporters of inexhaustibility, but radically disagree with their politics. They believe that changing the political structure of society will result in creating new forms of production that do not exist merely for the accumulation of wealth. The fourth direction is based on the philosophy of Martin Heidegger with its criticism of industrial modernity. This view combines poetic reverence for the existence of the Earth with a complete deconstruction of the program of world domination that has as its end the denial of death, a program which we are accustomed to calling “progress”.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.320 | 0.191 |
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".