Bibliographic record
Abstract
its environment, and it shows that it is precisely in these entanglements that such entities can exist and persist.(26) Grech's argument about radioactive isotopes concedes that although they are neither linguistic objects nor biological entities, 'they can be shown to enact forms of material survivance that are conceptually comparable to as well as materially entangled in the survivance of biological and discursive processes' (26).Finally, for scholars in the humanities, especially those who remain unsure about engaging the sciences, the book illustrates a way forward.The bibliography and footnotes are comprehensive, signposting pathways into science and science studies literature, as well as the political and ethical debates around human exceptionalism and the Anthropocene.Grech's critical intervention is relevant to a battery of contemporary philosophical discourses that includes new materialism, speculative philosophy, posthumanism and the environmental humanities.As mentioned above, her approach is a generous one, unusual in its positioning because the complexities of survivance, intra-textuality and intra-action prevent her from simply distancing herself from the texts she criticises: in sum, if we begin and end with/in the hauntological echoes of survivance then the identity of the Anthropocene and the appeal of 'the exception' will not suffice as stable departure points.Importantly, in the face of such difficulties the question, 'What to do?' needn't return us to despair and the paralysis of political quietism.Instead, Grech's thesis invites us to confront the imagined apocalypse through a diffracted lens that is transformative rather than merely representational, thereby 'reassess [ing] the value and significance that we attribute to different biological and material realities, and. . .allow[ing] us to better understand our own entanglements in them' (26).
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".