In Conversation with Isabelle Stengers: Ontological Politics in Catastrophic Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this conversation, Isabelle Stengers elucidates upon the ontological politics of scientific practice in this contemporary moment to remind us that another science is possible. Drawing from her own rich scholarship of sociology, history, and philosophy of science, Stengers makes the case that the scientific enterprise has been caught up since the scientific revolution in a practice of fast science which is premised on a particular kind of irresponsibility which has consequences for these catastrophic times. In turn, she calls for a slow science, one which is premised on redeveloping the art of paying attention to that which has historically and too easily bracketed out as “non-scientific” concerns. Not unlike the intrusion of Gaia, which Stengers offers as a critical alternative to the concept of the Anthropocene, slow science is an insistent stranger who can no longer be ignored, whose presence increasingly provides a productive irritation. Further, another science is not only possible, it is necessary: Stengers offers that it might be what is necessary to go beyond just surviving in the ruins.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".