Reckoning, Repairing, Reworlding: The (In)humanities, Artistic Practices, and Planetary Crisis (Guest Editors' Introduction)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Special Issue, we explore the capacity of creative practice, imaginative co-creation, and humanities enquiry to contribute to decolonial reckoning as a step toward feminist, anti-racist, anti-oppressive, and multilingual repair and reworlding.What follows includes contributions from those broadly working under the umbrella of the humanities, but who nevertheless live in tension with the subject position to which it conventionally aspires and through which it traditionally administers and gatekeeps knowledge.The three terms guiding our enquiry -namely reckoning, repairing, reworlding -are motivated by a decolonial ethics animating alternative pathways for living, dying, being, caring, and feeling otherwise amid a planetary crisis centuries in the making.The voices gathered here all reject traditional conceptions of the humanities which tend to reproduce the ongoing violences that underpin liberal humanism's progressivist trajectory and its consequently narrow envisioning of futurity; its grounding in various and mutually reinforcing forms of exceptionalism; its attribution of agency, consciousness, and intelligence
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".