ArticleSocial studies of science2025
Response to Damianos-Anthropocene angst: Authentic geology and stratigraphic sincerity.
Article in Social studies of science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Damianos provides his views on the significance of the March 2024 decision by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to reject the proposal of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), the body we represent, to formalize the Anthropocene as a series/epoch of the Geological Time Scale. He draws upon 'four years of ethnographic observation' of the AWG, over which time this body provided him with access to its meetings and discussions. Given this access, the numerous misrepresentations within his article warrant redress. Ultimately, his conclusions mimic claims of influential figures within the governing bodies of the stratigraphic process: that the AWG were attempting to formalize the Anthropocene for political reasons and subvert the process through use of the media, and that the proposed definition was based upon claims about the future and not the past geological record. We refute those accusations, and emphasize that the proposed Anthropocene epoch, based on scrupulous and detailed analysis of the stratigraphic record, demonstrates striking and transformative Earth System change driven by the mid-20th century 'Great Acceleration' of human activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.