Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author offers a provocative engagement with the implicit epistemological framework of Stone's famous question ‘should trees have standing?’, arguing for an epistemological remapping of the issues invoked by and implicit in it. Specifically, the author argues that the question of whether ‘trees’ do or should have standing is best understood as being ‘answerable situationally, locally, with reference to a specific society, ethos, and social-epistemic imaginary’ – for the question bears epistemological, moral-political and factual elements rendering it best understood as a ‘situated question’ – hence: ‘Which trees? Where? And to what ends?’ Answering Stone's question (thus reformulated) requires ‘knowing responsibly and well, ecologically – horizontally and not just vertically – the specific situations and meanings of the trees in question’. The author concludes that the emergence and effects of ecological thinking, with its ‘various and variously situtuated modalities’ suggests that ‘trees in diverse parts of the world in the early twenty-first are not the same trees Christopher Stone was writing about’.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".