MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1758912853

What is Living in Deep Ecology

2014· article· en· W1758912853 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Trumpeter · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanityDeep ecologyEthosDepictionMeaning (existential)Environmental ethicsEcologySociologyLogos Bible SoftwareEpistemologyEcological crisisCriticismAestheticsPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article asks what in deep ecology has the most enduring value, what escapes typical forms of negative criticism, what contributes most to the development of ecological thought, and what shows the most promise of transforming the larger society into an ecological one. Such exemplary qualities are discovered in Gary Snyder’s reflections on the wild and the sacred, Arne’s Naess’s inquiry into the meaning of “free nature,” Thomas Berry’s depiction of the place of humanity in the Earth Story and the Universe Story, and Delores LaChapelle’s exploration of the ethos and spirituality of place. It is found that a focus on such dimensions of deep ecological thought can reveal points of interconnection between what have been called “radical ecologies,” and help guide us in the direction of the deep logos of the oikos.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0040.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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