What do you mean by “epochal” change? Theorizing planetary transformations in the Social Sciences and Humanities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the social sciences and humanities have engaged extensively with the topic of the Anthropocene, much of this research has been conducted at a distance from “classical” geo-disciplines, which can provide valuable insights into the earth’s capacity for self-differentiation. More specifically, geological research into the Earth’s deep past points to magnitudes of planetary transformation (like epochal change) that are much more dramatic than is often assumed by critical social and environmental scholarship. This is particularly evident in the eight theses concerning the origins and trajectory of the Anthropocene that dominate discussions about the topic today. By comparing these theses to classical geology’s research on intervals of geologic time, epochal transformations, and the Earth’s capacity for self-differentiation, I argue that the critical scholarship on the Anthropocene must engage more closely with these geo-disciplines to develop more robust strategies for meeting the challenges of the current geo-historical conjuncture.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it