A Foucauldian Approcach to Climate Change Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis sheds light on the complexities of climate change discourse by applying Foucauldian discourse analysis to the Canadian 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. Through a six-step analysis process, the thesis intends to investigate the effects of discourse on the understanding of climate change and the consequences of constituting knowledge through discourse. The six-step process addresses discursive constructions, discourses, action orientation, positioning, practice, and subjectivity. Foucault’s theory of knowledge/power and discourse is used as a theoretical perspective for the thesis. The theoretical framework is applied to discuss how responsibility allocation may become problematic through the idea that knowledge allows its subject of it to become an object of underlying power structures. Thus, this discussion argues that social and economic development becomes prioritized over environmental preservation because of underlying political power structures. This is argued through Foucault’s theory of knowledge/power as a case of dominating and repressing language which ultimately produces knowledge. This allows knowledge to be an object of power. The discussion also illustrates that discourse has a profound effect on the allocation of responsibility for efficient environmental governance.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".