"Skogen er min katedral". Spiritualitet og økologi hos Henry David Thoreau og Neil Young.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I denne artikkelen hevder jeg at den kanadiske artisten Neil Young skriver seg inn i tradisjonen etter den amerikanske transcendentalisten Henry David Thoreau. Både Thoreau og Young identifiserer seg selv som «hedning» eller «pagan». I artikkelen undersøker jeg hva de legger i disse begrepene. Det sentrale innholdet i deres paganisme er knyttet til natursynet og menneskets relasjon til naturen. Jeg fant at det hos begge to er en nær sammenheng mellom paganisme og økologi. Ingen av dem hører imidlertid hjemme i én bestemt retning i paganismen. De forkaster begge det kristne natursynet, fordi dette oppfattes som antroposentrisk og er derfor lite egnet til å håndtere vår tids økologiske krise.\n\n\nIn this article I claim that the Canadian artist Neil Young and the American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau belong to the same spiritual tradition. Both Thoreau and Young identify as «heathen» or «pagan». In my text I investigate what they mean by using such concepts. What constitutes their paganism is how they view nature and how human beings relate to nature. I found that they both regard paganism and ecology as closely related. However, none of them belong to one distinct group of pagans. Both reject the Christian view of nature. This is regarded as anthropocentric and therefore incapable of solving the contemporary ecological crisis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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".