Chapter 1 Activating Cosmo-Geo-Analytics: Anthropocene, Arctics and Cryocide
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our introduction we laid out several concepts we feel are pertinent to understanding environmental processes in general: the need to recognize multiple worlds and the positions humans actors occupy within them; the urgency of acknowledging that expert knowledge emerges in many forms and that this knowledge may be communicated in many ways; and, finally, how peoples across the globe are experiencing and responding to uncertainty, unpredictability and precarity invites a continuing consideration of 'risk' as an analytic.The present chapter draws upon those ideas but turns readers' attention more specifically to issues that influence our contributors' analysis of Arctic conditions.In this we consider the Arctic as a specific ecozone which has generated a significant body of environment-related research, much of it subject to the questions of voice we introduced in the Introduction.We also examine the Circumpolar North as a particular cosmo-political zone which continues to register the nineteenth-century colonial footprints of Russia, the US, Canada and Denmark; these in turn have generated innovative and persistent pushback on the part of local residents across the region.We then explore briefly the extent to which it remains a global hotspotpolitically, economically, and ecologically -with tensions between those who want to exploit its non-renewable resources and those who focus more on the protection of its renewable resources which carry moral and spiritual weight in terms of interspecies sociality.The Anthropocene as a concept mobilizes so many of these issues
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it