Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While many of the physical sciences have historically and conceptually informed philosophy, geology is one field that has not received adequate philosophical attention. In what follows, I attempt to demonstrate how the relation between the geological and the philosophical is over-coded in numerous historical and fictional contexts in the form of geotrauma, the violence of the earth or the inorganic on the organic, and the violence of the inorganic on itself. Historico-mythical tales of the violence of mining and surveying often centre on the geological landscape as offering a form of violence, or as invading the consciousnesses of those around it with a form of ancient violence. In this regard, the earth’s geological forces can be treated as murderous agents, where investigating the crime simply seems to redouble the violence. The article examines how this strange and violent reflectivity deploys itself in an exaggerated way in weird and gothic fiction. Looking at the works of Fritz Leiber, H. P. Lovecraft and Charles Brockden Brown, this article attempts to argue how the fictionalization of geotrauma is a dramatization of the already existent co-implication of geology and philosophy in the form of a co-murdering and the traumatic nature of the expansive concept.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".