Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes Percorso Impollinatori (Tracing a Pollinator’s Path), a transdisciplinary citizen engagement project aiming to address the decline of wild pollinating insects via material deliberation methods. Following a participatory design approach, three different participatory actions were co-designed and prototyped in two locations in Italy as experimental instances of material deliberation methods, incorporating citizens, farmers, scientific experts, and artistic professionals into collaborative assemblages. This project identified material deliberation as a way to address epistemic pluralism, meaning that the non-discursive, artistic, and embodied modes of knowing were applied in combination with the more formal, scientific disciplines. Three participatory actions were specifically meant for the collaboration of local citizens and farmers, aiming: (1) to reflect on their personal experiences of pollinators and pollination, (2) to rethink the values they attribute to such experiences and to pollination services, (3) to reframe the pollinator decline issue from locally focused ecological and cultural perspectives, and (4) to generate collaborative ideas to invert the decline and let pollinating insects thrive. Drawing from Lattanzi’s definition of transdisciplinarity as disciplinary “outerspace” and anthropologist Ingold’s concept of correspondence, I (as the leading researcher and project designer) reflect on the collaborative assemblages constructed for each participatory action and on the dynamics enabled among their members, which allowed the emergence of transdisciplinary outcomes. I describe the participatory actions, focusing on how each unfolded through a preparatory and enactment phase, and the learning collected from each one. I conclude by suggesting that both in the preparation and in the enactment of the material deliberation methods, the activation of correspondence dynamics within the collaborative assemblages elicited the emergence of transdisciplinarity around the issue of pollinator decline. Future researchers are invited to reiterate the design and implementation process in other complex and conflictual sustainability contexts.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".