Posthumanism for Sustainability: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between posthumanism and sustainability and contribute to the interdisciplinary concept of posthuman sustainability. We conducted a scoping review of 45 peer-reviewed journal articles that met our inclusion criteria and employed co-occurrence analysis based on the clustering techniques of the VOSviewer. We identified five themes within the articles: post-humanism, post-anthropocentrism, post-dualism, post-Enlightenment, and post-technologism. Through our analysis, we found that posthumanism can offer insights into ecological issues and help promote alternative sustainable practices. We also identified three immediate concerns for post/humanities scholars: (1) fostering dialogue between critical humanist and posthumanist scholarship based on onto-epistemological plurality, (2) achieving conceptual clarity in the field, and (3) advocating for meaningful engagement with indigenous worldviews in a multidimensional and multitemporal manner. By exploring the relationship between posthumanism and sustainability, we hope to expand our knowledge of the urgent ecological issues we face and contribute to interdisciplinary efforts to address them.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it