Bibliographic record
Abstract
For environmental thinkers of different stripes—from techno-scientific ‘eco-pragmatists’ to climate activists—the concept of human failure—whether psychological, moral, or spiritual—is at odds with the language of hope needed to generate meaningful action. As Clingerman’s work on geo-engineering attests, failing to adequately meet the challenge of climate and ecological crisis is frequently expressed as a state to be overcome, through divine or human techno-scientific intervention. Against such a view, I want to propose failure as generative of environmental ethical thinking, particularly in times of mass extinction and irrecoverable ecological devastation. I do this by linking failure with two concepts that have become important to environmental humanities scholars: first, the concept of mourning as an ethical disposition (via the philosophies of Benjamin, Freud, and Derrida) that can foster more just, compassionate and sustainable ways of living. Second, inviting further interaction with Clingerman’s work, I propose to link failure to the concept of environmental hermeneutics, by understanding language itself as a sign of human failure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".