MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042468719 · doi:10.1177/2514848620938316

The Creatures Collective: Manifestings

2020· article· en· W3042468719 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kj Hernández, June Mary Rubis, Noah Theriault, Zoe Todd, Audra Mitchell, Bawaka Country, Laklak Burarrwanga, Ritjilili Ganambarr, Merrkiyawuy Ganambarr‐Stubbs, Banbapuy Ganambarr, Djawundil Maymuru, Sandie Suchet‐Pearson, Kate Lloyd, Sarah Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning E Nature and Space · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International AffairsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreaturesEthosPluralHarmSociologyEnvironmental ethicsPremiseWork (physics)AnthropoceneHistoryPolitical scienceEpistemologyEngineeringArchaeologyLawNatural (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This piece explores the work and entanglements of our research collective, formed in 2016. First, we collectively articulate the ethos and the motivations that inform the ways in which we labor to engage with complex, plural, multi-vocal experiences of extinction, “the Anthropocene,” and earth violence as they are felt and known across the diverse communities we represent. Then, drawing on more than three years of work across relations that tie us to Australia, Canada, Malaysian Borneo, the Philippines, and the United States of America, we share reflections on some of the vital relationships, methods, and “creatures” that animate our collaboration. This collection of “manifestings” aims to show how we work, very consciously, to foster more-than-human capacities for confronting the multi-scalar, cross-cosmological forms of violence that drive extinction and other forms of ecological harm in the world today.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.044
Scholarly communication0.0170.017
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning E Nature and SpaceSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207