The Evolution Of Global Environmental Politics As A Field Of Inquiry Over The Past Three Decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global environmental politics (GEP) has evolved significantly over the past three decades, emerging as a distinct interdisciplinary field that transcends traditional frameworks in international relations. This paper traces the development of GEP from its state-centric origins in the 1970s and 1980s, through its institutionalisation at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, to its contemporary focus on justice, equity, and plural governance. The paper highlights key innovations, including the integration of Earth system science, critiques of neoliberal environmentalism, and the centrality of climate change research, while noting persistent challenges such as North-South inequities and the marginalisation of non-climate issues. The field’s expansion to incorporate non-state actors, Indigenous knowledge, and critical methodologies reflects its maturation into a transformative domain addressing Anthropocene challenges. However, tensions remain between incremental reform and systemic change, as well as between academic rigour and policy relevance. This analysis underscores GEP’s vital role in reimagining global governance for an era of ecological crisis.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".