Rethinking Values in the Anthropocene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are we living in the Anthropocene epoch? What would it mean to say that we are? The year of 2023 has seen fierce debates among scientists over these questions, with an official proposal for a new geological epoch being rejected by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) in March 2024. Yet the Anthropocene concept continues to inspire new ways of understanding humanity’s impact on the planet across the arts, humanities and social sciences. The value of the concept itself thus goes beyond its rejected function as geological marker. This Twine explores some of the ways in which the concepts can help us rethink the spatiality and the temporality of the current ecological crisis from the bottom up. The proposal voted down by the ICS took Crawford Lake in Canada as the marker of the Anthropocene epoch. But what if we took other places, objects, or ideas as starting points for thinking about the Anthropocene? How might a global perspective on the Anthropocene reshape ideas of what counts as valuable and valid knowledge across the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities? The essays collected for this Twine answer these questions, offering perspectives from the Caribbean and South America to the Indian subcontinent, and working with methods from literary criticism to ethnography. They investigate how perspectives on the Anthropocene and the value of the concept differ depending on where, when, and what we consider to be its beginnings. This project was funded by a Knowledge Frontiers Symposia Follow-On Funding award from the British Academy. The building of the Twine was supported by The Plant at Maastricht University.
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 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.170 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".