What Could Wild Life Be? Etho-ethnographic Fables on Human-Animal Kinship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can humans and wild life co-exist? Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork conducted in and nearby Waterton Lakes National Park and Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada, we present two etho-ethnographic fables that show how a positive coexistence of humans and wild life may be sought after and achieved. The two stories–narrated by animals’ voices–prompt us to rethink the very meanings of wild life and humanity and challenge us to envision and appreciate a new kind of affective relationship between people and non-human animals. By attending to the mutual trust and care inherent in respect-based multi-species entanglements, in this article we attune ourselves to the importance of the relational autonomy of wild animals and generate ideas on what wild life could be when understood from the perspective of relational and Indigenous ontologies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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 it