“Dirty Energy” and Ecological Performativity in Contemporary English Poems: Critiquing Petro Culture of the Anthropocene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fossil fuels will always take command of human’s daily life. Despite being “dirty energy”, humans cannot jettison them since they are the mainstay for multipurpose energies. They are more dependable and accessible than renewable energy sources such as hydropower, solar panel, and wind power. Even more so, in this present globalization the increasing scale of consumerism via digital technology and social media consumes the fuels. This petro-overconsumption of the fuels and their derivative products such as plastic certainly has some detrimental impacts: the more emission of carbon dioxide and other toxic particles to the atmosphere. Contemporary English poems are some works that critique the petro-overconsumption. A Canadian poet, Stephen Collis in his poem “Take Oil & Hum”; a Hawaiian poet, Craig Santos Peres in his poem about plastic, “The Age of Plastic”; and two Indonesian poets, AfrizalMalna in “petrol cupboard” and F. Aziz Manna in “Estuary” are the epitome of ecopoems that share this concern. With their performative interiorizing of petro-materiality, their depiction of petro-transcorporeality from one form into another, they articulate the polemics and impacts of non-renewable energy on human and nonhuman creatures as the issue of ecological precarity in the era of 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".