Queer Mineralogy and the Depths of Hell: Sulfuric Skills, Early Modern England, and the North American Frontier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Levels of environmental apprehension are determined by how threatening embodied sensations deem ecological hazards. This may seem a simple categorization regarding human choice to participate in environmental activism. However, as energy conglomerates work to hide their malfeasance, modern selves rarely experience environmental decline through the five senses. The distances between the modern self and ecological hazards, both physical and discursive, emerge because the superstructure develops defense mechanisms that protect polluters. Encountering sulfur in the English environment, prior to the Industrial Revolution, consistently meant that evil was moving within the preternatural realm. The external sensing of evil through the sensory signatures of sulfur was a form of sense work within the phenomenological space between the supernatural and the natural. Throughout the Early Modern Era, the idea that sensing sulfur signified evil or malevolence faded. Because coal and her sulfuric sensory traits became vital to the establishment of the Industrial Revolution, embodied changes were forced to occur, essentially through the creation of a false sensory consciousness that defined sulfuric sensations as positive markers of progress, profit, and purity. Upon the frontiers of the commonwealth and the newly established United States, these sensations persisted. The early frontiers of North America offer historical spaces where individuals marched westward and educated their senses to discover profit. Sulfuric connotations of evil were rarely considered, as frontiersmen educated their senses beneath a superstructure that defined associations with sulfur as preternaturally safe. Sensory skills were negotiated and educated to catch coal and sulfur through greater and more refined tactile, nasal, flavorful, visual, and aural skills. These sensory pedagogies inhabited somatic work farther west into British Columbia, known for explosive environmental conditions due to large coal supplies, indigenous populations, sacred alimentary goods, and amazing natural beauty. How citizens decide to become activated to environmental concern, as within modern Vancouver and her sulfur mounds, arises through whether the socially constructed senses ever perceive pollution as corruptive.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".