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
Abstract This special section seeks to reconsider our troubled times and their histories of irreversible toxic pollution through the lens of hopeful yet critical ways of engaging with this unprecedented condition of life. Thinking with “hazardous hope” as a tool of analysis, the five contributions—combining perspectives from ecocriticism, environmental philosophy, film studies, visual arts, and history—showcase alternative presents and futures of living responsibly with a permanently polluted planet. Writing from the perspective of hazardous hope, the section’s editors argue, includes a plethora of conceptual and methodological repositionings to embrace the ambiguity that comes with living responsibly on a permanently polluted planet. Among them is a shift in focus on the acts and modes of hazardous hope as a relational practice that is focused on reorganizing established processes in radically different ways rather than wishing to achieve a predefined outcome, while at the same time remaining mindful of the polluted status quo. Contributions in this special section are situated across the entire troubled planet, from Chernobyl’s exclusion zone to Brazilian oil fields and from Canada’s tar sands to British asbestos-loaded homes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.175 | 0.007 |
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