Use of Terms “Ecophilosophy” / “Ecosophy” in the Works of English-Speaking Authors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To analyze the specifics of the use of the term “ecophilosophy / ecosophy” in modern Englishlanguage philosophical discourse. Methodology. The key research method was content analysis. The content of the works of Matthew Hrulew (Australia), Alan Drengson (Canada), Nancy Huffman Shea, Elizabeth Satoris, Gary Snyder and John Griffin (USA) was analyzed. Results. According to the results of the study, the thesis is put forward that eco-philosophy, including in the English-speaking research space, comes to the level of not just one of the scientific directions, but gets the status of a certain type of conceptual and attitudinal space. Research implications. The results of the study contribute to the methodological basis of such an actively developing direction of philosophical thought as ecophilosophy. New material on the topic under study is introduced into the Russian-speaking scientific turnover.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".