Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few things seem as immaterial as time. Existentially profound experiences of time require a great deal of reflective introspection and the uncommon ability to translate complex sensations into various modes of communication. Arguably, it is for these reasons that ordinary practices of time like waiting become oversimplified; reduced to facile binary oppositions such as stasis vs. growth, stillness vs. movement, and activity vs. inactivity. The scope of this paper is to empirically transcend the limitations of these ideas. Time is material, it is commonly sensed, experienced and discussed in mundane ways, I find and argue. My specific focus here is on the practice of time that we refer to as waiting. Waiting—as the gerund suggests—is an act, a performance. The use of the word performance is intended to suggest action and drama. The common practice of waiting—regardless of its context—can for example be understood as a social drama and more broadly as time performance. Drawing upon performance theory and on ideas of material culture as performance I intend to provide empirical evidence to a much discussed but understudied theoretical vision of time as action or performance. The short ethnographic tale I present below draws from an ongoing fieldwork project being carried out in over thirty different field sites all over the West Coast of British Columbia, Canada. By way of in-depth interviews (to date with 223 individuals) and two years (again, to date) of participant participation this project intends to understand the roles that ferry boats play in the lives of island and coastal community dwellers.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.008 |
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".