Geo-themed and geo-centric thought: reflections on the onto-epistemological basis of critical thought’s geologic turn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical social and environmental thought is undergoing a ‘geological turn’ whereby the science of Geology and the notions of the ‘geos’ and ‘the geologic’ are repeatedly conjured to think through current historical and socio-ecological challenges. In this article, I examine the conceptual, methodological, and empirical basis of this geologic turn, identifying five strands of research that currently constitute it but fail to take seriously its supposed object of study, thus qualifying as ‘geo-themed’ rather than ‘geocentric’ strands of research. I argue that the geologic turn remains relatively underdeveloped, overlooking how the onto-epistemological foundations of capitalist and colonial modernity are being destabilized by ongoing research at the intersections of the human sciences and the geosciences – research whose geo-historical significance critical thought’s geologic turn is uniquely positioned to develop into new modalities of matter and visions of modernity for life in the transition moment we occupy between planetary states.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.141 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".