Evidence and experiment: Curating contexts of Anthropocene geology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Together with research teams from around the world, the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) has been meticulously quantifying and scrutinizing the global stratigraphic imprint of human activities, the results of which are gathered in this thematic collection of papers in The Anthropocene Review. How can such empirical research, which so impressively articulates the end of a relatively stable Earth System in the mid-20th century, inform our ways of understanding and responding to the planetary crisis that the geological samples quietly represent? In this afterword to the collection we report and reflect on the joint undertaking of the AWG, Haus der Kulturen der Welt and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science to bring geoscientific evidence, cultural experimentation and historical contextualization together in a shared public framework.
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 | 0.324 | 0.585 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".