Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Major Paper is offered in the context of an ongoing journey, several expeditions, concurrent passages. Traveling over, around and inside thoughts, words and lived experiences, it examines notions of wilderness and human relations with the natural world. Situated in the context of wilderness environments in Ontario, this paper is an account of contacts between the author and her home through literary representations, relationships, and embodiment. It is both a grasp and a gift in that it is an attempt to take hold of ideas and sensations, to make meaning, while at the same time offering glimpses into human perceptions of, and relationships with the natural world. \n \nIn its form and content this paper presents disjunctures between theory and practice; self and other; linguistic practices and the idea/event of a journey; sensing/perceptions of the natural world and language. Here nature moves beyond popular definitions and assumptions to include ideas of a wilderness as actor, process, a state of mind, a realm of power, mystery, spirit, a relational Other. \n \nSome of the central questions inspired by and carried along this written journey are: Can perception/writing be anything besides a restructuring of the world? Is there wilderness within language, within perception? How does one perceive/represent/live supposed binaries like self and other, freedom and constraint, or belonging and abjection, bound up within self and within relationships? How does human embodiment as part of nature affect these relationships? How do we ask in respectful ways? How do we ask without probing?
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".