Playing with the Anthropocene: Board game imaginaries of islands, nature, and empire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The figure of the island as a metonym for the planet is central to many allegories of the Anthropocene. These allegories build upon pre-existing discourses of islands as remote, vulnerable, and timeless, and often portray contemporary island nations as helpless, doomed, and disposable. This article focuses on one allegorical terrain that has received limited discursive and cultural analysis: analogue board games. Board game representations of islands are relevant to island studies both due to the popularity of island themes and because of the resonances between common island imaginaries and the form of board game play itself. Looking at three explicitly island-themed board games (Taluva, Vanuatu, and Spirit Island), I explore the extent to which these games reiterate or contest discourses of islands as sites of ahistorical insularity and alterity. I investigate the presence and absence of islanders in these fictional landscapes, the relationship between these ludic cartographies and imaginaries of ecological collapse and environmental intervention, and the articulations of nature, humanity, and empire that are literally at play. Particularly in the case of Spirit Island, these board game representations reflect the potential for the figure of the island to be reconfigured in order to imagine the Anthropocene otherwise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".