Fermenting Communications: Fermentation Praxis as Interspecies Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbes are in, on, and around us at all times, yet we cannot easily communicate with them. How do we (continue to) live with microbial life in ways that allow for our mutual thriving? Using a performative lens, this paper analyzes the material practices of fermentation as a way of connecting with different scales of life. It attempts to challenge conventional understandings of communications (e.g. encoding/decoding models put forth by Stuart Hall) by examining the layered manner in which fermentation engages with matter and meaning. The material practices of fermentation require embodied knowledge to work with microbial life, and the discursive considerations of fermentation challenge anthropocentric thought. Thus, materially and discursively, fermentation functions as a continual form of engagement. Thought of as a form of communication, fermentation helps us to consider some of the invisible relations we have with microbes and connect with micro-species we often take for granted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".