Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Anthropocene offers an opportunity to (re)imagine and enact futures that care for the geological and ecological times and temporal rhythms of kin, and to expand beyond human politics of time. This article engages posthumanism to disrupt anthropocentrism and attune to times as embedded within relations of being together-with nonhumans. In this methodological article, I consider what it might look like to be together-in-time(s) with nonhuman kin and offer some possible practices for attuning to nonhuman times and the co-created times of leisure. From these temporal attunements emerge creative and affectively disruptive (re)presentations of being together-in-times with rocks, chipmunks, a shaggy mane mushroom, and a log in two protected areas in Ontario, Canada. (Re)imagining leisure in the Anthropocene as an ethic of togetherness, this article seeks to care for affective, relational, and embodied practices of being-with, knowing-with, and writing-with kin and kin times, and for flourishing more-than-human futures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".