Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of people across the western world are identifying as nonreligious. This book examines this shift through the lens of community gardens. We do not ask people what they believe in ways that are abstracted from their everyday lives. Rather, by focusing on gardening we enter the world of action—what people do, the practices of their everyday lives. Drawing on interviews from community gardeners in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, England, Finland, Norway, Northern Ireland, and the United States, the book explores themes of community-building, ritual, ethics, and relationships with humans, non-humans, and the natural world, arguing for their conceptualization as ‘lifestances’. The book reveals a shifting sensibility about the relationship between humans and the world around them. That relationship is shifting from a vertical relationship to a horizontal one; from a relationship of human dominance to a relationship of shared responsibility and equality. This is possible because there is an increasing recognition that the current hierarchical model, based in religious teachings and human exceptionalism, is untenable. Community gardens offer an ideal vantage point from which to explore these changes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".