We, Or That Which Plant-Thinking Thinks (Seeding An Answer To A Question From Dipesh Chakrabarty)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a careful reading of Michael Marder’s book Plant-Thinking and a recent 2020 article by Michael Marder, this essay argues it is necessary to establish a differentiation between what is called plant and vegetal. Through and beyond the form of the plant there would be a time and a vegetal metabolism whose proper name is “we.” “We” as a denomination of the vegetal implies a conceptual transformation, but also an answer to the question of who “we” are. Who are we now when, as Dipesh Chakrabarty asserts, our “we” no longer has any “ontological dimension”? While Chakrabarty answers the question of the “we” by answering that “we” are “a geophysical force,” I propose, following Marder, that the answer is: we are vegetality.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".