Bibliographic record
Abstract
The environmental humanities are suffused with a sense of urgency. As geoscientists sound the alarm about human treatment of the Earth, likewise environmental humanists seek to trigger the "conversation of humankind" that seems scarcely to be happening outside universities. This essay ponders the future of the environmental humanities, and specifically their relationship to the geosciences whose messages animate much current humanistic inquiry. It cautions against a too-hasty acceptance of the notion of a "global environmental crisis." It argues for forms of interdisciplinary work that give humanists parity-of-esteem with geoscientists. And it suggests that a modified paradigm of global environmental assessment might be a viable vehicle for greater humanistic influence in the global public sphere. Throughout, humanists must somehow balance trust in geoscience with a critical stance towards its core messages about a changing Earth system. This stance is anchored on the ground of democracy, the necessary political basis for any legitimate decisions about humanity's future on Earth. Steering the environmental humanities will be a major challenge given the need for humanists to retain academic freedom yet cooperate in order to exert influence outside the academic domain.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".