Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent talk by John Urry on environmental issues and social theory cited James Lovelock’s latest contribution to environmental debates, The Revenge of Gaia in which Lovelock discusses (among other things) positive feedback ‘tipping points’ that can lead to significant changes in climate systems.1 As a sociologist researching symbiogenesis, I am curious about the viscidities of favor that Gaia theory — which Margulis calls symbiosis from space — attracts. Lovelock’s invocation in a sociological venue surprised me: I had understood my current interest in Gaia theory as a late-comer to social scientific discussions that have long abandoned Gaia. And while Margulis believes that Gaia theory is becoming more acceptable in ‘polite scientific society’, the two foremost scientific magazines, Nature and Science, have both labelled Gaia a ‘pseudo-science’ — the kiss of death in most academic communities.2 And in so far as social scientists associate Gaia with new-age goddess worship and failed social and deep ecology movements, Gaia seems to engender a ‘been-there, done-that’ reaction.3 Urry’s presentation prompted me to consider whether social scientists are re-engaging with Gaia theory beyond its significance as a truth-claim within modern environmentalism discourse.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".