Exploring Symbiosis: a Critique of Anthropocentrism in Jack London’s The Call of the Wild
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the relationship between human beings and animals with the ecocritical lens. The objective of this paper is to bring the original relation between human and nonhuman beings into context by addressing the question that how is human identity and existence shaped by animals and how can the symbiotic bonding between them be established for sustainable existence of all? The critical and theoretical insights from Emmanunel Levinas's ethical considerations of interest, Jacques Derrida's idea of relative existence along with the issues of ecological-environmental justice and other philosophical, ethical - biological views of the scholars are special considerations of this research to critique human and nonhuman animal dichotomy to bring out the state of symbiosis. It finds a symbiotic relationship between the two species that leads the work to critiquing pervasive speciesism in human. The human and nonhuman beings appear in the contesting relation in the culture leading to the state of negation, exploitation, consumption and extinction. From wild to tamed, aquatic to terrestrial, small to big, powerful to powerless all nonhuman animals have to live defensive lives and humans always behave in offensive way against them. The discourse that human is endowed with prerogatives over the nonhumans is self-created. So, the rivalry between human and animal is a suicidal contest between culture and nature
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".