Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper undertakes the first ecocritical reading of Waste Heritage , building on discussions of space, mobility, and immobility in the novel in recent work by Colin Hill, Jody Mason, and Candida Rifkind. Waste Heritage , this article argues, employs what Lawrence Buell has called “toxic discourse”: a mode of writing that inculcates environmental awareness through images of toxified spaces, places, and bodies. The toxic discourse of the novel signals its affinity with a group of mostly American works that have been called “ghetto pastorals.” While Waste Heritage is not the classic tale of growing up poor that ghetto pastoral usually connotes, like these works it employs disrupted, invaded, and polluted pastoral imagery to critique a capitalist system in which working-class aspirations toward living wages, suburban life, and leisure space are futile. This article provides a much-needed analysis of how complex pastoral relies on toxic discourse, and models this relationship through a reading of the toxic pastoralism apparent throughout Waste Heritage .
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".