Belaying the Inevitable: On Intellectual Collaboration in the Anthropocene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue that inheritors of Euro-modernity must find new ways of engaging perspectives that have been coercively displaced by the very modernising forces that now imperil the viability of all human societies. We elaborate two models of cross-cultural engagement: (1) philosophical ‘braiding' (Allard-Tremblay, 2022), per which disagreements between traditions are thematised without merging, and the possibility of irresolvable contradiction is acknowledged. Lingering concerns about appropriation and epistemic 'tourism' are then addressed by the secondary model of philosophical ‘belaying' (2). In its non-metaphorical capacity, 'belaying' is a facet of mountaineering safety, whereby the climber and the belayer mitigate the danger of falling by deploying orchestrated tension and friction through hitches and anchors. In both cases, the goal is to facilitate new self-understandings and unexpected constellations of ideas from within one’s own philosophical perspective—asking why ‘we’ persist in conducting our research or teaching in the manner that ‘we’ do.
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 | 0.027 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.038 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".