Edmonton Hiphop Kulture: Techniques of self and cultural sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The word culture is rich with complex meanings and despite its use in common speech little is known about it and even less about the practices that contribute to ‘its’ continued existence, what might be called cultural sustainability. Edmonton Hiphop Kulture:Techniques of Self and Cultural Sustainability documents the role of techniques of self, defined as the daily practices an individual uses to transform his or her body, soul, thought and conduct of being (Foucault, 1988, p. 18), in the development and maintenance of Hiphop Kulture in Edmonton, Alberta. Using a Critical Constructivist methodology, the researchers document the weekly creation of Hiphop Kulture knowledge at Cipher5, a knowledge circle organized by Hip Hop specialists Andre Hamilton, Don Welsh, and MacEwan University professor Dr. Michael B. MacDonald. With Michel Foucault’s (1988) theory in mind that culture is a form of administration built by techniques of production, signification, domination and self (Kendall & Wickham, 1999, pp. 3-54), this paper documents the researchers’ exploration of techniques of self in Hiphop Kulture. The researchers theorize that these techniques, or cultural practices, include self-expression, belonging, and identity development and that these three techniques encourage the sustainability of Edmonton Hiphop Kulture. Research methods include participant observation at weekly Cipher5 meetings, autoethnography, interviews with Cipher5 members, and a literature review including a critical hermeneutic analysis of Hiphop literature.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".