Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engages with the post-Darwinian biology central to Deleuze and Guattari’s ecological thought Finds a strong convergence in Deleuze and Guattari’s work with new directions in evolutionary theory Thinking about the symbiosis between philosophy and science in new ways Summarises, interprets and evaluates of Deleuze’s relationship to evolutionary theory, from Darwin through Ruyer Resists a straightforward characterisation of Deleuze as a critic of evolution, instead looking at his debt to – and his inheritance, reconfiguration and anticipation of – a number of tendencies integral to evolutionary thought, both in its historical and emerging dimensions Deleuze and Evolutionary Theory gathers together contributions by many of the central theorists in Deleuze studies who have led the way in breaking down the boundaries between philosophical and biological research. They focus on the significance of Deleuze and Guattari’s engagements with evolutionary theory across the full range of their work, from the interpretation of Darwin in Difference and Repetition to the symbiotic alliances of wasp and orchid in A Thousand Plateaus . In this way, they explore the anthropological, social and biopolitical significance of the convergences and divergences between philosophy and evolutionary science. Contributors Barry Allen , McMaster University, Canada. Michael James Bennett , University of King’s College in Halifax, Canada. Claire Colebrook , Penn State University, USA Erin Hortle , University of Tasmania, USA. Paul-Antoine Miquel , University of Toulouse II – Jean Jaurès, France. Johan Normark , University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Tano S. Posteraro , Penn State University, USA. Jon Roffe , Deakin University and Melbourne School of Continental Philosophy, Australia. Daniel W. Smith , Purdue University, USA. Hannah Stark , University of Tasmania, Australia. "
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".