Notice bibliographique
Résumé
While the gift economy is often considered a mechanism to strengthen social ties, the grift economy is often considered detrimental. However both systems rely on reciprocal play adding complexity to and questioning the ‘valuation’ mythology in contemporary free market logic. While traditional markets rely on so-called mutually agreed upon standards or market levers (value of currency, democratically decided upon regulations, legal precedents for civil behavior, global agreements for free exchange, supply-demand curves driving price), it is clear that this system has many games, loopholes, subsidies, institutional baggage, infrastructural lineages, national perversions, and theoretical distortions that make this free market, not actually free to correct its perversions on contemporary ‘value’ or inherited wealth inequity based on historic values. Gifters and grifters both contest value and do so by engaging existing social systems in unconventional ways. They work together, differently. In this presentation, I will playfully explore various theories about microbial economies that share gift/grift-like economies that support diverse bodies of life within a finite ecosystem of natural resources. For example, imagine a humanly visible maize root compared to an invisible microorganism; the single-celled bacteria cannot simply chew up the root that is orders of magnitude larger than itself (most microbes have a diameter between 0.5-10 microns, roughly the same range in size of ground corn starch). The scale of the opportunity for a microbe to eat a complex foodstuff like maize is Herculean! One form of microbial collaboration is called syntrophy. In this example, microbes living in environments without oxygen participate in an enzymatic potlatch. Different species contribute different enzymes to the extracellular matrix (outside the microbe body where the large molecule resides). Collectively these different donated enzymes with different capacities incrementally breakdown the complex substrate (the food). When the food is broken down into small enough metabolites, these basic building blocks of life in the extracellular matrix are now small enough to be absorbed by the small microbes (not unlike what happens in our stomachs) for maintenance, growth, or reproduction. Microbes share their genetic resources (in the form of donated enzymes) to then be able to collectively harvest the resulting metabolites in the commons of their extracellular space. In this case, it literally takes a village to make the village; losing certain species (and associated enzymes in the shared metabolic supply chain), breaks the collective system of metabolism to access the building blocks of the maize root. Just as in gift, grift, and current capitalist markets, the microbes deploy different agents to play different roles to access and distribute resources necessary for life. What is missing from this microbial system (in my anthropocentric read) is a perverse consent to value oneself and others’ worth, independent of the material needs of all. This talk will share observations from my art practice of transforming microbial ecosystems, present synopses of various theories on microbial ‘economies’, and then reflect back on two fringe human economies (gift/grift) to re-consider how we might build equitable and just collaborations to live sustainably within our own finite world.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».