Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their responses to my framing of the ecological crisis as an ontological crisis, my interlocutors raise questions about the relationship between ontology and ethics; whether and how attention to affect and a reimagined ontology can cope with the demands that we face when thinking of ethics on a planetary scale; the implications of contemporary actions in deep time; and whether thinking through affect leads us to a perspective divorced from History. In response to Gandy and Jasper, I address misplaced charges of anthropocentrism, claims I abandon the subject, and claims I privilege affect in a way that ignores reason. In response to Sharp, Stark, and Clark, I elaborate (a) the ways in which we can proceed from a reimagined ontology to ethics through a more critical engagement with contemporary scholars (e.g. Buchanan and Wehelyie, who leaven the concept of assemblage), (b) the selective engagement of western philosophers as a kind of pars destruens to a western concept of the subject, and (c) the richness of an approach based on semiosis, which uncovers the communicative relations between a vast array of actors and actants and offers both a different vision of plenitude and the potential for wider range of alliances. I propose this as a prolegomenon to a reimagined future and expanded sense of human subjectivity—one which would acknowledge, celebrate, and promote a maximal biodiversity, in recognition of the ultimate dependence of humans on the workings of nonhuman others.
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 | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".