Storytelling Morality: Ecofeminism, Agrarianism, and Pigs in the Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding our relationships with and obligations to the natural world through the labor and practice of food production is central to our development as moral beings and environmental citizens. Both ecofeminism and agrarianism—in their overlap and distance—can offer ideas about how best to express our environmental and citizenship ethics through the everyday act of growing, eating, and engaging with food. Raymond Anthony (2009) reminds us that a narrative ethics approach—embraced by both ecofeminism and agrarianism as a meaningful source of ethical wisdom—when applied to animal agriculture helps to build a more inclusive moral community. But Anthony cautions that the predominant agricultural storyline is made up of incompatible camps. He proposes a new story for agriculture, one that offers reconciliation or revitalization. In the spirit of this revitalization, we offer two stories of our material practice of raising pigs on an educational organic farm to illuminate what we see as important ethical, social, and environmental context for our new agricultural narrative. Through these stories we aim to give context to the theoretical ecofeminist and agrarian dialogue about ethics rooted in the land, so we might better understand what appropriate relationships with nonhuman others and natural systems might look like in practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".