Bibliographic record
Abstract
At a May 2019 conference on ‘Le Regard écologique’, organized by the University of Chicago in Paris, philosopher Martin Rueff outlined the main ideas of his forthcoming book, Une philosophie de la nature est-elle encore possible?. By asking this question, Rueff was taking up the oft-repeated assertion that nature is dead either because the entirety of the earth’s biosphere has been affected by human activity or because the idea of nature as a normalizing principle has been thoroughly deconstructed.1 Rueff argued that a philosophy of nature is still possible on the condition that nature is understood to exist within historical processes as perishable and under threat of destruction.2 The point is not that nature is finally disappearing for good, but that part of what makes a philosophy of nature possible today is the threat of that same nature’s perishability. I am echoing Rueff’s conference paper title here — ‘Une écocritique est-elle encore possible?’ — because I want to adopt a similar line of questioning about the conditions under which an écocritique is practised. What are the objects of study in this field? How are these objects being studied? What parallel approaches to the same objects of study are being developed? In what places is such a field emerging? Does écocritique constitute a field? What political questions inform its multiple approaches? Additionally, I will argue that écocritique may be on the verge of disappearing because of its integration into the larger field of the environmental humanities. While it may seem contradictory to take such a position just when écocritique has become the topic of an increasing number of conferences, articles, monographs, edited collections, research groups, and programmes in the French and francophone world, I hope to show that not allowing écocritique to settle into a single defined research area may be what best ensures its adaptation and survival.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.008 |
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".