Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his first book, Jamie Draper examines climate displacement under the light of political theory. More specifically, driven by empirical cases from the literature, he sets out to map the moral terrain of this issue and to provide normative guidance for states and the international community. The author argues that a treaty for climate refugees, establishing a specific status for people displaced by climate change, is based upon an idealized understanding of climate displacement, as it does not consider the complexity—climate change is generally part of a broader set of drivers for displacement—and the heterogeneity—the variety of ways it presents itself in—of this type of displacement. Therefore, such treaties would arbitrarily protect people subject to a particular form of displacement, but not others in similar situations whose only difference is that they are not displaced by climate change. They would also provide every person falling under that status with the same set of rights regardless of their needs, which fails to consider climate displacement’s heterogenous outcomes. Both arguments are reminiscent of critiques levelled at the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as addressed in Chapter 6. To remedy the pitfalls of a treaty for climate refugees, Draper develops a pluralist theory of climate displacement, which sets aside the concept of climate refugee and instead champions an approach ‘which disaggregates climate displacement and integrates it with non-climatic forms of displacement, rather than proposing principles for an idealized climate refugee’ (p. 20). While Draper’s rejection of a treaty for climate refugees is not groundbreaking, as it notably aligns, as he points out, with Jane McAdam’s critiques of such a tool (McAdam 2011), one of his significant contributions lies in the robust, wide-ranging and cohesive moral argumentation supporting this stance, and the normative solutions he proposes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".