The Common Erasure of Space and Nature: Communication as a Bridge Between the Discourses of Designed Space and Ecocentred Identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Space, as a concept of human design, has been given little consideration in the discourses on nature. In this article, I argue that the conceptual erasure of space should be addressed in conjunction with the study of nature’s marginalization. I argue that the root cause of the erasure of space and nature is commonly derived from the flaws of western metaphysical construction and, therefore, we are better served by attending to both together rather than in isolation. Using a dialogic model of communicative action, the ecocentred scholar can develop means for addressing the spatial designs that influence and reinforce human misconceptions about the world. The dialogic model, by encouraging openness, compassion, affirmation, and continuity, can be used as a common language for ecocentric philosophers and critics of space and design. In this way, the ecological discourses can bring their influence within the spheres of spatial design and, it is hoped, encourage new ways of considering the human self and its relation to the spatial world.
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 | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".