Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon is rapidly undergoing a joint technological and cultural transformation. With the prolific rise of carbon dioxide removal in the climate pathways and net zero commitments that contour wider energy transitions, carbon emissions are increasingly positioned not just as future actions to be avoided, but as an already existing material sink newly opened to technical intervention and marketization. While climate models contemplate industrial-scale carbon removal technologies by the end of the century, carbon removal is currently characterized by small-scale, agricultural work: regenerative farming and biochar production. This article focuses on these forms of artisanal carbon removal, analyzing how its workers develop a unique experience of what is otherwise an invisible object of social anxiety: for them, carbon is an object of their labour, transformed through work into newly sensory and reparative forms. The narratives and affects of small-scale carbon removal work, accordingly, present a significant departure from the usual frames of climate and energy politics, offering rare possibilities for hope, regeneration, and relational capacities for direct and tangible action. Drawing on documentary media about and by regenerative agriculture and biochar practitioners, this article explores how such unalienated affects may culminate in new orientations for climate communication and politics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".