The togetherness of togetherness and separateness: some reflections on ASC/B.I.G. 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to set out an analysis of Gregory Bateson's thought about the relations between parts and wholes, between separateness and togetherness in order to illuminate the kind of answers Bateson proposed to the contemporary ecological dilemma. Design/methodology/approach – It roughly situates discourses of the “enchantment” of nature on the side of togetherness and discourses of scientific disenchantment on the side of togetherness. Findings – The essay looks at Bateson's discovery that neither separateness nor togetherness can ever be thought of without the other as an indication of the limits of both disenchantment and enchantment, and it suggests that awareness of these limits enables ecological insight. Originality/value – The essay proposes a broad summary of a general problem in Gregory Bateson's epistemology and shows how it emerges in political, social and ecological space.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".