Climate change, vulnerability, and cultural loss <sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of global warming on vulnerable peoples often presents them with a compelled choice between in situ adaptation and relocation from their homelands. Two existing philosophical approaches to this dilemma – the climate refugee approach and the territorial justice approach – pay too little attention to the cultural losses incurred when people with strongly-located cultures are forced to move. We examine in some detail three cases in which Pacific islanders have relocated from their existing lands, to show how even relatively ‘successful’ relocations can be disruptive of community norms and practices. We also consider the impact that new arrivals can have on the existing inhabitants of the territory they move to. How, then should adaptation v. relocation decisions be made, given that community members may have conflicting preferences? Younger members may attach more weight to gaining access to the resources of a bigger and possibly more open culture, while their elders are more concerned that their traditional culture should as far as possible be reproduced in a new setting. We favour Draper’s democratic model of decision-making, which proceeds through deliberation and tries to balance the interests of majorities and minorities by proving ‘effective rights of exit’ to those who do not want to join a collective relocation. These may, however, pose problems for the viability and cohesion of the community as it relocates; instead, members may have a time-limited moral obligation to move to the new territory, after which they should be offered sufficient resources to move elsewhere.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".