Bibliographic record
Abstract
There seem to be two sorts of debates about precursors and antecedents to the Anthropocene. One concerns the question whether the concept of the Anthropocene was captured by earlier terms, such as “noösphere” or “the Anthropozoic Era”. The other concerns whether the full-scale transformation of Earth systems was already, at least partially, triggered sometime prior to the 19th century Industrial Revolution. This paper takes a wider perspective, which may be seen as orthogonal to these debates, by enquiring whether there are other biological agents in Earth history who may have generated a new Epoch, and also by seeking to identify historical and prehistoric antecedents in human–nature relations that may foreshadow the Anthropocene. One conclusion is that humans are certainly not the first biotic agents becoming drivers of planetary system changes. Another conclusion, ironically, is that some cultural innovations that were adaptive under earlier conditions presently have become collectively mal-adaptive and contributory to the hazards of our new Epoch. Finally, it is suggested that while it may be unclear whether we can manage the socio-political challenges of our times, our adaptive versatility in principle ought to suffice to successfully manage the climate challenges of the Anthropocene.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".