Performing Bureaucratic Theatre in Academic Science Fields, A Case Study: The Pheromone Trees and Coyote
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines a project entitled The Pheromone Trees and Coyote as a case study, to draw an analogy between concepts of territoriality—regarding fluid territories of highly adaptive wildlife species—and the fixed ‘territories’ of institutional management systems that deal with them. Coyotes, as a ‘varmint’ species in Canada, can be subject to violent control strategies, with little to no restrictions in place. Yet the case study, first proposed within the context of an academic research programme (situated on the opposite side of the planet and with entirely different ecological circumstances), became burdened with prerequisites—theatrically absurd certification processes and field performances, considering the open permissibility of local regulations. This paper will discuss how a remote federal ‘partnership’ framework of institutional governance can be seen to represent extended colonisation, where blanket restrictions on access to natural ‘resources’ (i.e. ‘fur-bearing’ animals) discount lived, hyperlocal realities of citizens and wildlife experts.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".