MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026347255 · doi:10.1002/wat2.1444

The materiality of ethics: Perspectives on water and reciprocity in a Himalayan Anthropocene

2020· article· en· W3026347255 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)AnthropoceneEnvironmental ethicsReciprocity (cultural anthropology)AestheticsNarrativeSociologyWater securityGeographySocial scienceWater resourcesPhilosophyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the Himalayas, water is seen by some as intricately linked to humans and produced through ethical actions. Its materiality, as a lack or excess of rain or snow, as healthy or receding ice, as destructive hail or flash flood, is a reflection of humans' moral attitude and an outcome of a process of reciprocity that links humans to nonhumans, the land, and divine beings. This perspective departs from the conception of water seen through development projects and from studies about climate change, which tend to objectify water through an epistemology that isolates nature from culture. Water as the materiality of ethics is examined by drawing on cases from Ladakh and Zanskar in the Himalayas and by reviewing studies from other parts of the Himalayas. In particular, water as the materiality of ethics is analyzed through three perspectives: how water is produced as people interact with a sacred geography, how snowy peaks are produced as objects of morality through affective attachment and encounters, and how water is produced as part of multispecies assemblages. A review of an ontology of water defined by reciprocity is important considering the significant changes currently taking place in the Himalayas and which are brought about by climate change and state production through large‐scale development projects. It can enrich our understanding of their implications for the cultural life of the often marginalized peoples of the Himalayas and contribute to narratives about the Anthropocene. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented Human Water > Rights to Water

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it