Envisioning ecological security through local direct action: community resistance with global resonance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As climate change becomes a pressing concern for policymakers and citizens around the world, a variety of security discourses have emerged framing the environment as a security issue. While dominant frameworks focus on securing national interests, the international order, or individuals, the ecological security framework presents an alternative discourse. Ecological security requires a refocusing of the security discourse onto the environment itself, vulnerable communities, and future generations, and requires the exploration of alternative, relational forms of social and economic organisation. This framework has often been discounted as an impractical and radical alternative to dominant discourses, however, I argue that ecological security can, and is, being enacted by local communities around the world through radically relational activist methodologies. I suggest that direct action methodology employed by environmental activists can enable the enactment of ecological security by local communities. By investigating the connections and overlaps between blockade-style activism, direct action methodology, and Indigenous resurgence, it is possible to envision a locally-based, radically relational, bottom-up model of ecological security. Through an investigation of the conflict between Wet’suwet’en land defenders and the Coastal GasLink pipeline, this community-activist-ecological security nexus is drawn out and examined as a possible path forward for climate security.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".