A cosmopolis of all beings: Cosmopolitanism, Indigeneity and the more-than-human
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cosmopolitanism - either an idea that goes far back in recorded human history, or an approach whose form came before a definition - places high value on individual moral responsibility to other moral beings beyond the intermediation of the nation-state. Nussbaum's version, critiqued by Naseem and Margison, links cosmopolitanism to rational liberal democracy, beyond, but not to the exclusion of, individual responisiblity and loyalty to the state. Appiah's more nuanced version still holds the possibility of a universalist ethic while respecting difference. Magsino sees cosmopolitanism as a possible countervailing force to globalization. All of these recent theorists place cosmopoiltanism in the realm of human action and responsibility. This paper explores Spinoza's cosmology as a way of not only broadening the sphere of cosmopolitanism to the more-than-human world, but in doing so, shifting the basis of membership therein from responsibilty to other moral beings, to acting morally to the extent of the capacity one has to formulate moral sensibility. This stretches the hitherto human orientation of cosmopolitanism. But Toulmin's etymology, linking human ordered-ness to ordered-ness in the world, suggests otherwise. Spinoza's cosmology is shown to have relevance to some Indigenous ontologies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".