Being-with-Animals: Modes of Embodiment in Human-Animal Encounters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter argues for an alternative perspective, namely that direct, embodied experience should be central to the effort to understand human and animal nature. There is currently something of a 'renaissance' of interest in the embodied nature of experience that cuts across disciplinary boundaries in both the social and biological sciences. This trend has reinitiated a concern with 'lived experience', with the everyday manner of 'being-in-the-world' , drawing upon phenomenological methods to furnish new insights into processes such as empathy, intersubjectivity and relationship. The chapter identifies some of the intersubjective processes by which human-animal relationships develop. In focusing on the more embodied aspects of interaction the aim to examine those qualities of relationship which are best captured by a phenomenological approach; that is, the dynamic, transformative and indeterminate character of interaction. Keywords:animal nature; human nature; human-animal relationships; phenomenological methods; renaissance
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it