Anthropocene Geopolitics: Globalisation, Empire, Environment and Critique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Critique is about challenging the taken for granted categories in scholarly and political discourse. Three aspects of contemporary politics at the biggest of scales are subject to critique here: the assumptions underlying the War on Terror, globalisation and the notion of environment. The global War on Terror is not really global, and might well be better understood by using imperial analogies from the past. Globalisation, once its implicit geographies are directly addressed, might be better understood as a matter of glurbanisation. Likewise earth system science, and its suggestion that human actions are now on such a large scale that we live in a new geological period, the Anthropocene, requires us to rethink assumptions of our living within an external environment. Taken together these criticisms of the taken for granted spatial categories of contemporary political life raise big questions for how geography is now understood and how we might teach it in the future. Such an analysis also suggests the continued importance of critique as an intellectual practice in the academy.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".