Earth Gratitude at the Canadian Institute of Mining Convention: An Ecofeminist and Ecopsychological Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the 2019 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) sales expo, a blip in the capitalist discourse was introduced: an Earth Gratitude Booth (EGB). The booth was created to provide the Earth a gentle space of representation as more-than-object in a quintessentially Earth-objectifying environment, as well as to offer people at the convention an opportunity to consider and reflect on Earth–human interconnection. At the convention, participant observation methods were employed as convention-goers walked past the booth, took part in an Earth gratitude community art creation, and/or listened to a stoney soundscape available at two listening posts. Challenges such as maintaining physical and emotional boundaries were encountered. The experience of the booth highlighted both ecofeminist and ecopsychological perspectives, and those systems have been employed for the analysis. Despite several incidents of poignant disrespect, the outcome of the booth was positive: 64 CIM Convention-goers laid gratitude stones and many more engaged positively with the booth. This gentle placement of an EGB at a mining convention may well have served as a portal to reflection on the interconnected self.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".