Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a rarely undertaken transcultural literary study, comparing the non-Indigenous novel <i>Blå</i> by Norwegian author Maja Lunde with the Indigenous novel <i>The Back of the Turtle</i> by Cherokee (US-American and Canadian) author Thomas King. By exploring the co-evolutionary relationships among art, literature, culture, ecosystems, and the environment, this study positions itself within the framework of eco-cosmopolitanism. It examines human-Earth relations and possibilities for action in the face of the climate and environmental crises portrayed in the novels. The analysis engages equally with Eurowestern approaches—ecophenomenology, ecophilosophy, ecopsychology, and ecocriticism—to address themes related to ecological elegies, ecological grief, the ethics of mourning, and symbiocenic critiques of the Anthropocene, and with Indigenous concepts of all-relatedness, particularly Anishinaabeg epistemologies and the cosmogonic story of Skywoman. By juxtaposing an Indigenous narrative9s capacity to convey storied resilience and survivance in the midst of extreme crises with a non-Indigenous narrative9s reliance on didactic warnings, negotiations, and techno-managerialism, this article underscores the importance of Indigenous perspectives in transcultural, eco-cosmopolitan approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".