Jordskred:bidrag til den nye naturtænkning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jorden skrider under os – både i figurativ og bogstavelig forstand. Naturens mange kriser tvinger os til at sætte spørgsmålstegn ved den måde, vi behersker og udnytter vores naturlige miljøer, andre dyrearter og andre menneskers livsformer, rettigheder og arbejdskraft. Under strømmen af naturkatastrofer vokser samtidig en afgrund af sorg, pessimisme og lammelse i både tænkning og handling. Vi har akut brug for nye og mindre besidderiske greb om vores natur, nye måder at se og behandle den på. Her kan den humanistiske og politiske tænkning være med til at skabe en intellektuel orientering og tænke tidens betingelser i nye konstellationer og mønstre, som ligger hinsides det, vi kender. Jordskred og dens 15 kapitler, skrevet fra vidt forskellige perspektiver og kritiske positioner, er et kollektivt led i tidens bevægelse mod at udfordre og gentænke menneskers forhold til naturen. Jordskred er redigeret af Paradoks – tidsskrift for filosofi og teori.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.188 | 0.070 |
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".