MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229077151 · doi:10.7202/1088470ar

Toward the Humilocene: The Embodied Rhetoric of St. Francis of Assisi

2022· article· en· W4229077151 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cynthia Rosenfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Trumpeter · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricEmbodied cognitionRhetorical questionSociologyPower (physics)AestheticsHumilityEnvironmental ethicsStyle (visual arts)EpistemologyPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceLiteratureArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In support of abandoning the term Anthropocene in favor of calling our current epoch the Humilocene, this essay addresses Lynn White, Jr.’s critique that a particular understanding of Christian creation theory is the cause of our current ecological crisis, briefly discussing contemporary attempts to read the Old and New Testaments in a manner harmonious with White’s critiques and recommendations, and explores the embodied rhetoric of St. Francis of Assisi. I argue that Francis’s manner of embodying three of Cicero’s canons of rhetoric is relevant to contemporary rhetoricians and to deep ecologists. Francis’s rhetorical style is an embodied rhetoric that assists advocacy by transforming everyday experiences, builds community through an embrace of agapē, and, through Francis’s adoption of the position of “servant,” helps establish a more equal distribution of power. Franciscan rhetoric offers equipment for moving through the humiliation, humility, and redemption of the Humilocene.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.032
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe TrumpeterSame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207