Examining framings of geoengineering using Q methodology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite (or perhaps reflecting) widespread awareness of its ambiguity, the term 'geoengineering' has in recent years become massively more prominent.Academic, policy and civil society circles routinely use this term to describe, support or oppose a diverse range of techniques and ideas.This study aims to contribute to understandings of ways in which variously envisaged approaches to 'geoengineering' of the global climate are currently being framed.It asks not only about variously viewed implications of geoengineering itself, but also what these diverse framings can reveal about wider politics in contemporary debates around climate change, science and technology.The paper applies Q methodology to analyse geoengineering as a subjective discursive construct, the bounds of which are continually negotiated and contested.35 participants from a variety of disciplinary and institutional backgrounds in the UK, US, Canada and Japan undertook a 'Q sort' of 48 opinion statements about geoengineering between December 2012 and February 2013.Four distinctive framings emerged from this analysis, labelled: 'At the very least we need more research'; 'We are the planetary maintenance engineers'; 'Geoengineering is a political project'; and 'Let's focus on Carbon.' Results indicate a strong polarity around divergently-construed pros and cons of geoengineering as a wholeunderscoring the political salience of this term.But additional axes of difference suggest a more nuanced picture than straightforward pro/anti positioning.The ambiguity of the term is argued to offer interpretive flexibility for articulating diverse interests within and across contending framings.The paper questions whether increasing terminological precision will necessarily facilitate greater clarity in governance discussions or public engagement, and argues that the merits of any given form of precision will depend on particular framings.Much ambiguity in this area may thus be irreducible, and hence the challenge lies rather in realising the wider implications of the political pluralities this reveals.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it