MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409160926 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2025.111543

Historical spatio-temporal data on North American radical environmental direct-action events

2025· article· en· W4409160926 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zack W. Almquist, Benjamin E. Bagozzi

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Research articleComputer scienceGeographyData scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social and political event data are widely used in scientific research. However, event data concerning the direct actions of radical environmental groups is comparatively scarce, due in large part to inconsistent news coverage and the clandestine nature of the groups involved. Leveraging original reports maintained by radical environmental groups and their allies, this article codes historical spatio-temporal event data on radical environmental direct-action events in the United States and Canada during a period of heightened prominence in radical environmentalism: 1995-2007. The article's event level data include information on event type, date and geolocation, and the target of each event, as well as the original textual reports of each coded event. This data will facilitate a wide variety of qualitative and quantitative analyses of radical environmental activism, alongside validations of recently developed large language model (LLM) tools for event data extraction. We also offer a separate spatio-temporally aggregated version of these same data. This second dataset is aggregated to the 0.5 × 0.5 decimal-degree spatial grid-year level and adds additional environmental-, environmental group-, and social-correlates. Accordingly, this second dataset will readily enable spatio-temporal statistical analyses of radical environmental direct-action events, their causes, and their determinants-phenomena that have been previously under-explored in large N studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207