Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using plastic as a “theory machine,” this article looks into the dynamics and poetics of what I call plastic literature. It argues out a case for the “plastic sea” with its properties like sinking, mineralization, scopious contamination, pervasiveness, and deep-water micro-plasticization. The translocationality of plastic represents a spatial consciousness where plastic seeps into salt, water, soil, animal and human bodies, media, and our psychosis in non-linear, non-hierarchical, fragmentary mobility and fluidity; this does not discriminate between its point of origin and eventual destination, race, ethnicities, discriminations of colour, religious affiliations, cultural heritage, and political schoolings. Thus, plastic provokes connections/comparatism with a difference that speaks of becomings, dispersions, and immanence. Is plastic behaviour and agency not close to how we think of literature in a globalized world? Working out the other areas of the material aesthetic of plastic, the article connects plastic behaviour with literary habits and thinking. It homes in on “plastic lit(t)erization” to bring about a new poetics of thinking and doing literature. The article strings corresponding coordinates as made available through our understanding of plastic sea, networks of transmission, travel and transition, gradient flow, trans-corporeality, local-global fusion, process time, sink, and the discourses around hyper sea. Plastic literature becomes our new poetics of generating literary capital and rethinking world literature.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".