Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overpopulation, climate change, genetic engineering, geoengineering, the mass extinction not only of nonhuman species but of indigenous human cultures and their languages-all of these dubious markers of human progress compel us to think nature anew.None of the familiar epithets apply.We must think nature in the way it is given to us to think it today.No longer is nature accessible to us as divine cosmos or eternally balanced container of human life.Traditional preconceptions of nature have come to an end in the Anthropocene.We can no longer deny the finitude of the earth; we can no longer pretend that it will remain what it is for us now, that it is invulnerable to what we do.The Anthropocene discloses not only the fragility of what Pope Francis calls "our common home," 2 but the untenability of older ways of thinking about it.Bruno Latour goes so far as to say that we must now do without nature.He writes, "There is no harmony in this contingent cascade of unforeseen events and there is no nature either-at least not in this sublunary realm of ours.But to learn how to situate human actions into this geostory is not-such is the crucial lesson-to 'naturalize' humans either.No unity, no universality, no indisputability, no indefeasibility is to be invoked when humans are thrown in the turmoil of geostory."3 The 'order of things' has dissolved in the Anthropocene.But Latour goes too far; nature still means and can continue to mean more than the "already 1 This paper is a revised version of Chapter One of my Thinking Nature: An Essay in Negative Ecology (Edinburgh University Press, 2019). 2 Francis I, Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality: On Care for our Common Home (Brooklyn and London: Melville, 2015).
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".