Gender and Climate Change Research : Moving Beyond Transformative Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on how communities in the Arctic can overcome the challenge of climate change have traditionally employed adaptation frameworks. The ability of these groups to continue thriving in the Arctic is complicated by historical, social, economic, and political complexities - issues thoroughly addressed through the postcolonial feminist concept of transformation. This article critically examines contemporary research on climate and gender, and the extent to which feminist transformative concerns are addressed, thereby challenging systems and promoting power structures that recognize or benefit all segments of society. The article adopts an analytical strategy which combines two parallel instances of critical reflection on climate research, specifically, a systematic literature review of climate and gender studies in the Canadian Arctic, and the results of a round-table workshop of international climate experts and researchers on the state of climate change, adaptation and gender research in the Arctic. The article explores the results of these analyses and distinguishes those strategies that represent a continuation of status-quo power relations and climate adaptation processes from those that account for current economic and socio-political factors.
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 | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".