Thinking Across Worlds: Pluriversal Potentiality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflecting on the epistemological history of the microscope alongside theories of pluriversality and Anishinaabe mnidoo ontology, “Thinking Across Worlds” addresses the microscope as an instrument of decolonial worlding through two artworks created by the authors. We ask, “How can we think across worlds—microscopic and macroscopic, western and Indigenous, scientific and creative—to transform the present and the future, from ecological devastation and colonial violence to sustainability and decolonial justice?” The art works, titled Gathering and Resonance, are experiments in political ontology, through immersion in other worlds, other versions of reality. In these microscopic hydrospheres, Anishinaabe mnidoo reality prevails. Human viewers are dwarfed by the microscopic mnidoo that surround them. The place of humans is revealed to be a mere part within a multiplicity of relations. Our own interests are eclipsed by the dramas that play out among these minute forms of consciousness.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".