Time for rewilding: The chronobiopolitics of wildlife conservation in Britain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rewilding is a new approach to wildlife conservation that challenges the temporalities of orthodox approaches to identifying and securing desired environments. It encourages conservationists to look to deeper pasts and further futures as they formulate appropriate reference points for the Anthropocene. It figures conservation less as the prevention of species extinction and more as the choreography of ecological processes to secure desired functions and services. This paper focuses on Britain and the use of large herbivores and native trees to enable afforestation. It develops and applies a novel conceptual framework for critically examining the temporalities of rewilding by drawing together cognate literatures from political ecology, environmental philosophy, time studies, queer theory and disability studies to help theorise the chrononormativities and chronobiopolitics of rewilding. The analysis comes in three parts. The first examines the normative political strategies of baselining and horizoning through which pasts and futures are mobilised to legitimate present rewilding practice. The second explores the environmental biopolitics through which temporal rhythms are choreographed in the practices of rewilding, exploring how processes of ecological succession are curated and how rewilders deal with unexpected events. The final part of the analysis critiques the emerging chrononormativities and chronobiopolitics of rewilding in Britain and advocates for alternative models more conducive to multispecies flourishing in the queer, crip ecologies of modern Britain. The conclusion identifies priorities for future research on time in conservation and calls for continued conceptual engagement at the interface of political ecology and queer and disability theories.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".