Advancing Sustainability and Social Justice in the Global South
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harmful anthropogenic activities adversely affect Indigenous populations, such as the Inuit people and Nigeria’s Ogoni people. Environmental degradation disparately burdens such communities, thus making them to seek for environmental justice. Tribunals at all levels have affirmed that failing to safeguard the environment violates human rights, especially for Indigenous people who need a healthy environment, food, and access to resources to survive. The Global South continues to grapple with a plethora of issues, including ecological unsustainability, poverty, and inequality, but issues of justice are often disregarded in sustainability-oriented projects. Therefore, there is a need for countries in this region to integrate social justice into environmental sustainability. The concept of environmental justice traces its origins to the US during the 1980s when scholars used it to describe the unequal effect of industrial pollution on the country’s racial minorities. The idea has significantly blossomed during the last five decades, expanding historically and geographically to cover various global environmental struggles. This article explores why the concept of social justice has resonance and usefulness for advancing sustainability and why it is timely for the concept to be considered for the Global South. It delves into these issues with a specific focus on the Global South, examining case studies from various countries in the region and exploring key insights from the Global North.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".