MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297011335 · doi:10.5194/gh-77-389-2022

Imaginäre Naturverhältnisse: Psychoanalytische Einsichten zur Herstellung ontologischer Sicherheit in Berlin, Vancouver und Singapur

2022· article· en· W4297011335 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucas Pohl, Ilse Helbrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueGeographica Helvetica · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology, Conservation, and Geographical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPsychicScholarshipThe ImaginaryEveryday lifeSociologyEnvironmental ethicsObject (grammar)AestheticsPolitical sciencePsychoanalysisPhilosophyPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A central diagnosis driving research around social relations of nature is the thesis of the “end of nature”. In an era marked by climate change and global warming, the image of nature as a pristine and stable foundation of human existence seems outdated. In light of this, recent scholarship demonstrates how environmental changes and conflicts increasingly affect people's daily lives and present significant threats to psychic well-being. In contrast, in this paper we investigate the conditions under which nature continues to function as an effective source of `ontological security'. As part of an international comparative research project that engages geographical imaginaries of security and insecurity in Berlin, Vancouver, and Singapore, we analyze how nature is imagined by city dwellers as an object of desire that offers a place of refuge to escape the burdens from urban everyday life. Against this background, we emphasize imaginary nature as a powerful everyday source for the ontological security of subjects even under today's postnatural conditions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.023
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueGeographica HelveticaSame topicEcology, Conservation, and Geographical StudiesFrench-language works237,207