Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ecocriticism is a field within literary studies that asks how cultural artifacts illuminate, contribute to, or mitigate environmental crisis. Critical Animal Studies (CAS) is a cluster of humanities disciplines that explore the meaning and significance of the notions of “human” and “animal” and the material and symbolic consequences of these foundational representations. Understanding the potential contribution, as well as the limits, of such humanities perspectives is vital for successful cross-disciplinary collaboration. Much ecocriticism analyses environmental literature, including nature writing, and is of limited scientific significance. In the case of invasion biology, though, science writers, humanistic scholars, and novelists have questioned the cultural and empirical basis of such key concepts as “native” and “alien” and urged attention to the inherently political nature of historical baselines, biogeographical boundaries, and definitions of human agency. Conservation laws and policies in general are shaped by specific cultural contexts, as well as transnational scientific interests, and milestones in the development of scientific ecology, including the recognition of “pollution” and “chaos,” retain traces of their cultural history. Contemporary environmental non-fiction incorporates empirical findings and decenter the writing self in ways that complement dispassionate scientific writing. CAS explains the role of language in defining “the human” and excluding “animals,” both by assigning language use exclusively to humans and by attaching negative values to animality. CAS questions Western culture’s preoccupation with asserting human uniqueness and superiority (also known as “anthropocentrism”), which is expressed in science through the taboo on “anthropomorphism.” CAS scholars also discuss cultural artifacts, including movies and literary texts, in terms of their representation of animals and celebrate examples that undermine anthropocentric assumptions. Ecocriticism and CAS reframe the questions asked by environmental scientists in ways that acknowledge cultural difference and complexity and advance understanding of the vital science–policy nexus.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".