Different visions of climate equity that don’t see eye to eye
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been a growing desire to link the fight against climate change more closely with issues of justice. City-based movements for climate justice reveal the overlap between climate vulnerability and other issues that require a profound systemic change towards more socially just forms of urban transformation. However attempts being made to integrate justice into climate planning and action by local governments, these efforts often remain superficial and insufficient. So, how do these two types of actors engage on questions of justice? Our case study identifies the climate equity discourse presented by the City of Montreal, Canada, and certain civil society actors following the publication of the City’s new Climate Plan in the early 2020s, in contrast with certain civil society actors who are strongly mobilised on behalf of the climate. We paid particular attention to outsiders, i.e. actors or communities identifying with the environmental movement and the climate justice discourse but are not involved in formal political decision-making processes. Our results contribute to debates on equity in climate planning by providing data on shortfalls in the City's consideration of justice, and by reporting on civil society's mobilisation on these issues. We conclude that there is no dialogue between the City and outsiders regarding their understandings and representations of climate equity, which poses a risk of developing maladaptation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it