Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Kindred Ethics” discusses the similar objections expressed in Aldo Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” and Alain Badiou’s Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil. Both men oppose formulaic, procedural ethics that render thinking and consciousness unnecessary. Although the role of post-structuralist theory in ecocriticism has generated much contentious debate, the juxtaposition of these two texts—one a pillar of environmental writing and the other the work of a contemporary French theorist—demonstrates that environmental writing and theory share some common ground. Bearing the kinship of these texts in mind, this article also argues that the supposed rift between ecocriticism and theory is a fabrication: that is, both the urgent drive to “theorize ecocriticism” and the equally passionate desire to preserve its “untheorized” purity are founded upon myths that an examination of the history of the field overturns. In concluding, “Kindred Ethics” points out that in addition to being informed by post-structuralist theory from its very origins, ecocriticism should be understood as a theory in its own right—one that challenges anthropocentrism, scrutinizes setting, and utilizes narrative scholarship as an important form of archival research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".