Integrating Historical Ecology and Environmental Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental justice studies (EJS) provides a framework for interdisciplinary research and advocacy in the realm of cultural heritage research and management. Ethnobiologists, in particular those who focus on environmental archaeology, are no strangers to the heritage arena as our scholarship commonly concerns “cultural keystone places,” which are rich with meaning for one or more groups of people. Three dimensions and three core concepts of EJS can serve as guideposts to research centering on these significant places. These EJS concepts align and intersect with core principles of historical ecology (HE), particularly through the study of landscapes as complex systems. This paper highlights how environmental justice and HE can be conceptually integrated. This EJS-HE framework is relevant to research design in environmental archaeology and more broadly ethnobiology, a framing to be adopted at the beginning of the research process that explicitly considers whether a research question is ethical to approach within a particular heritage context.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".