Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is surely beyond doubt that current consumption trends are socially unjust and environmentally unsustainable. Scientists and practitioners who argue for sustainable consumption need not continue to theorize the environmental consequences of overconsumption; rather, emphasis should now be directed towards creating the changes in culture, policy, and regulation required to foster sustainable consumption. In this respect, current approaches that build an argument for reducing material consumption on normative principles likely have the effect of preaching to the choir rather than encouraging widespread reform. Attempts to change individual and aggregate behaviour should be constructed upon narratives of satisfaction in lieu of sacrifice. Drawing on extant literature on sustainable consumption in its various guises, as well as 26 interviews conducted with families who seek to reduce their material consumption, I advance the notion of reclaiming consumption. Reclaiming consumption involves shifting from quantity to quality in consuming and requires reflexivity with regards to the impacts of consumption on oneself, others, and the environment. In this way, reducing consumption can add to quality of life and thus offers a narrative framework built upon pleasure rather than sacrifice. In elaborating on theoretical and practical literature, I develop an analysis of how reflexive consumption practices include an emphasis on high quality products.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".