Dreaming Beyond a World on Fire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning in 2021 after two devastating climate events in British Columbia, The Imagine Kin Project sought to take the temperature of young people living in Metro Vancouver who were concerned about climate futures and economic insecurity as they imagined their future relations in this context. This pilot research involved a series of three focus groups and an arts-based workshop. Presenting original data from the focus groups, I argue for the use of radical imagination as a methodological tool to understand people’s experiences of intersecting precarity, invite reflection on and validation of related anxieties, and foster the conditions for radical hope among participants. Further, I suggest that questions of kinship and critical caring relations are useful prompts for radical imagination as these personal subjects allow insights into intersectional precarity to be collectively politicized in perhaps less intimidating ways than would more direct questions about social movements. Findings from this research show that imagining the future through collective daydreaming can be painfully revealing of one’s fears while simultaneously stirring life-giving visions for relationality and solidarity amid apocalyptic thinking and individualist responses to global crises.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".