MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590818177

The Living Earth and Its Ethical Priority

2003· article· en· W1590818177 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stan Rowe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarth (classical element)Environmental ethicsContext (archaeology)Earth system scienceDeconstruction (building)AstrobiologyHumanityEcologyGeographyPhilosophyPolitical scienceBiologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stan Rowe is a retired ecology teacher, professor emeritus at the University of Saskatchewan, and is interested in Earth-human relationships and especially ecospheric ethics. Author of the book Home Place and of numerous essays published in The Structurist, he lives happily in the mountainous terrain of New Denver, British Columbia. “Living Earth ” means that Earth is the carrier of the vitalizing essence or animating principle here capitalized as “Life ” to differentiate it from “life ” as traditionally associated with organic things alone. Planet Earth exhibits cyclic processes of organic construction known as “aliveness” and of inorganic/organic deconstruction named “deadness, ” and the various states or phases of these closely integrated processes have developed within and dependently on Earth’s air-water-land ecosystems—named “geoecosystems ” because they are place-specific. Thus Earth, the Ecosphere, and its sectoral geoecosystems—resembling mega-terrariums and mega-aquariums with all their organic/inorganic contents—have from the beginning of time been the evolutionary source and purveyors of Life. Metaphorical language has equated life only with organisms. Ecological knowledge, by revealing the importance of context, shows that Earth is synonymous with Life in its l d i d of e tic i i

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207