MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Everyday circularities: perspectives from the Global South

2025· article· en· W4407272107 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sônia Maria Dias, Manisha Anantharaman, Kersty Hobson, Mary Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueConsumption and Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationScholarshipContext (archaeology)SociologySustainabilityPoliticsPolitical scienceSocial scienceEnvironmental ethicsPublic relationsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To highlight critical perspectives on the Circular Economy (CE) this conversation with Manisha Anantharaman and Sonia Dias considers often-overlooked Global South perspectives on everyday dynamics of circular transformation. In this conversation, we, Mary and Kersty, chat with Manisha (Sciences Po), a scholar in critical approaches to sustainability and circularity, and Sonia, a sociologist who works for WIEGO (Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing), about key issues and debates concerning circular change that emerge from their work in India and Latin America. Our conversation spans the broader political and economic contexts of the CE and the necessity of situating everyday circular practices within this framework of unequal access. Beginning with an exploration of the ‘circularity divide’ (Barrie et al, 2022), in which CE initiatives can deepen inequalities if not carefully approached, we discuss the crucial role of informal workers in the Global South and the importance of inclusive, context-specific approaches to circularity. We then explore the differences and similarities in consumption dynamics across settings; the role of the household as a critical scale of analysis; and the diverse domestic experiences within these settings. Finally, we discuss the significance of DIY infrastructures and the informal economy in creating and sustaining the systems of provision essential for enacting circularity, as well as the role of scholarship in supporting political action for inclusive circular change.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0290.073
Scholarly communication0.0190.025
Open science0.0020.022
Research integrity0.0080.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConsumption and SocietySame topicFood Waste Reduction and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207