Sweetness and Loss: An Urgent Call for Affiliative Modes of Living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journal of Ethnobiologylive in.It is just simply not a time when sweetness-in the beloved and nourishing interpersonal, visionary, and culinary forms captured in this issue-is being given its due.The importance of crafting this issue at this time into a message of broad societal relevance is, therefore, plain.In the way of the inter-discipline of ethnobiology, what follows is a frame we hope is capable of displaying the enduring pricelessness of biocultural diversity today, in this case, drawing on the lovely, tender, fulfilling, and pervasive nature of sweetness.Our main conceptual approach is to situate sweetness within what has been described as the reading-off hypothesis (Barry 2007).Argued consistently to be the most fundamental human-nature conceptual channel, the reading-off hypothesis describes a conviction that thorough examination of the natural world brings worthy prescriptions for human flourishing and goodness.In its firmest form, it places nature as an authority for social norms (Smith 1996).
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".