Fossil fuel interests, climate obstructionism, and higher education policy: A critique of the Australian Universities Accord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how national higher education policy can obfuscate the need for effective climate action. It critiques the Australian Universities Accord, a recent policy aimed at creating an economically prosperous, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable nation. Through a critical analysis of the Australian Universities Accord, we show how it: i) was formed with significant input from fossil fuel actors, networks, and interests; ii) supports climate solutions that tighten links between industry and higher education; and iii) proposes a new governance mechanism that will ensure fossil fuel interests continue to exert influence on the higher education sector. Although the Accord claims to advance credible responses to the climate crisis, we suggest it maintains a social, political, and economic status quo that supports fossil fuel interests. This article extends research in the field by showing how higher education policy can become a site of organized climate obstructionism at a national level.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".