MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7014173176

On Divestment

2015· article· en· W7014173176 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound) · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueEcocriticism and Environmental Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDivestmentClass (philosophy)EnvironmentalismEcocriticismCreativityCreative writingPunkSustainabilityWork (physics)Task (project management)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Foreword to On Divestment\nThe writings collected here are an online supplement to a class zine title On Divestment. The zine and online archive were conceived, written, and designed by the members of the Spring 2015 Literature and Environment course (ENGL 374) at the University of Puget Sound. Considerations of timeliness and sustainability encouraged us to keep the size of the printed zine compact by including only excerpts of each author’s work; the zine is in a sense an advertisement for the more substantial body of writing that you find here on Sound Ideas, which reproduces student creative work in its entirety.\nInformed by our study of works of ecocriticism such as Rob Nixon’s Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor (Harvard UP, 2011), which explores the role that imaginative writing can play in illuminating ecological issues, our class seized the opportunity of a collaborative final project to see how students’ own writing—whether creative, critical, or some combination of the two—might engage with a topical environmental concern.\nThe selection of a final project was arrived at through a democratic process. Working in groups of five individuals, students presented proposals for a final project, arguing both for the primacy of the environmental concern they selected and the efficacy of the writing task they were asking the class to undertake.\nAll the proposals were excellent, but the class had to settle on a single undertaking; the project that students ultimately selected was the fossil fuel divestment movement, currently a topic of debate on many university campuses, including the University of Puget Sound. Largely led by students, this ongoing environmental movement encourages colleges and universities to divest their endowment holdings from companies whose primary business is fossil fuel.\nSince we knew from recent reportage in The Trail that UPS’s own ECO Club is advocating for fossil fuel divestment, we invited ECO Club representatives to speak to the class. From their visit, we learned about the broad contours of the divestment movement. Observing that the majority of scientists understand anthropogenic climate change to be the result of burning fossil fuels, the divestment movement argues that colleges and universities should exert pressure on these companies by withdrawing their investments from them. Several universities have already made commitments to divest some component of their endowment, among them Stanford University, Pitzer College, and the University of Glasgow, and campaigns to do so are underway at other institutions of higher learning, as well as many cities and municipalities.\nIn formalizing the class proposal into an assignment, the terms were intentionally crafted to remain open-ended and non-prescriptive. Students were invited simply “to create a work of literature or literary analysis that engages with the issue of university fossil fuel divestment.” (Students could also opt out of the zine and write a more conventional final essay). Here are some excerpts from an email that I sent to the class elaborating on this non-traditional assignment.\nThere's a quotation by W.B. Yeats that strikes me as relevant here: "Out of the quarrel with others we make rhetoric; out of the quarrel with ourselves we make poetry." What I understand Yeats to mean is that honest creative writing explores its subject, rather than argues a pre-established position. (For his word "poetry" in that quotation, you could equally substitute "drama," or "fiction," "creative nonfiction," etc.) Our goal is to write literature, not propaganda . . . . While the work you create should shed light on some aspect of the divestment issue, it needn't do so directly. In fact, it’s possible to shed light on the issue without even mentioning the word “divestment.”\nConsider, for example, the first novel we read this semester, Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake. That novel engages with a host of environmental topics, among them global climate change, genetic engineering, population growth, the treatment of animals, and environmental justice. It doesn't tell the reader what to do or think about any of these issues; rather, it explores them imaginatively, but it does so in a way that I believe encourages readers to be more reflective about each of those issues than they were before starting the novel. It sheds light on these issues.\n[K]eep in mind that this assignment does not expect that you will take a particular position. It does not assume that you will create a work of literature or literary criticism that is “for” fossil fuel divestment. (I'm not even sure that a work of art can ever be “for” or “against” a particular action. Is Oryx and Crake for or against the human manipulation of the environment? Who knows?—it's a work of imaginative writing that tells a story. Readers can engage their own sense of values based upon the encounter with the imaginative work).\nI hope that this advice is helpful and that you feel authorized to write freely. I created the opportunity for the assignment because I believe that your voice—both individually and collectively—does matter and I wanted to facilitate a way for it to be heard, in however modest a fashion. What that voice says is entirely up to you.\nThose twenty voices from the class combine to form the collective voice you encounter here in the Sound Ideas archive On Divestment. On behalf of the writers and critics in ENGL 374, I invite you explore these remarkable poems, short stories, essays, and plays in their entirety.\nBest wishes,\nProf. William Kupinse\nDepartment of English

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,124
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,415

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,003
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0010,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1240,040

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,189
Écart entre enseignants0,162 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound)Même sujetEcocriticism and Environmental LiteratureTravaux en français237 207