Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Why are we failing the environment and our ethico-ontological relationships? I engage Anthropocene studies scholars (for example, Chakrabarty), geologists, environmental-ontologists (for example, Arianne François Conty) to understand human arguments for a hopeful future. While some argue hope, we are continually reminded, by the very scholars giving us hope, that we are failing. I argue an ontological repositioning as a means of saying “fuck-it” in the face of death in order to accept human failure as a positive movement out of the shadow of the nihilistic eternal recurrence of hope. Turning to Arthur Kroker and Heidegger, we can understand why hope as a product of the will can never be anything but a “will of will:” aimlessness. Jairus Grove’s work on political pessimism gives us a frame of reference for turning to do otherwise. I derive this project from Thom van Dooren’s question: “Should we rape the Whooping Cranes to save them from extinction?”
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".