Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter concludes that by repositioning ourselves ontologically in the deep commons an infinite number of worlds can be co-imagined simultaneously, realising the 'community of free communities' theorised by generations of anarchist scholars. It is argued that it will remain crucial that the co-constitution of free society remains an ongoing process – pluralised, open, responsive and grounded in the here-and-now. Any such utopia must remain immanent both in substance and temporality. There will be no end point, and no eventual transcendence. But more than mere abstracted theory, this final chapter argues that (r)evolutionary love has been evidenced throughout the book as a common lived/felt experience, materialising as political direct action, as long-term processes of struggle, and as a radical solidarity embedded in the deep commons. It is the experience of Hassan on the streets in Syria, of Tom at the G20 protests in Toronto, of Maria and her permaculture community in Mexico, of Angelo and his comrades occupying squares in Brazil and of Dembe and his affinity group in Kampala. It is the empathic matrix of mirror neurons described by De Waal, the experience of O'on or 'collective heart' that infuses social reproduction in Chiapas, and the 'level of real love' that Öcalan argues will be necessary for the construction of a free democratic society. (R)evolutionary love, the book concludes, offers an alternative political response to the multiple crises we now face – to turn outwards, to reconnect, and in that connection to transform ourselves and the worlds we co-create.
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 | 0.001 | 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".