Ten facts from critical and interpretive social sciences for environmental research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social sciences are crucial contributors to environmental research. Collectively, they provide insights on the economic, cultural, political, and psychological dimensions of sustainability challenges. Yet, efforts to mainstream the social sciences in environmental research are missing the diversity of social science scholarship. Here, we contend that the critical and interpretive social sciences -which question and rethink established paradigms and power structures- have an invaluable, yet still underutilized, role. We propose that rethinking the focus, conduct, and goals of environmental research recognizing 10 facts from the critical and interpretive social sciences can help environmental research to better support desired transformative change for the benefit of both people and planet.
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 | 0.077 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".