Secreto, lenguaje y memoria en la sociedad de la información
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dialogue between a psychoanalyst (Raquel Capurro) and a specialist in information ethics (Rafael Capurro) deals with the relationship between secrecy, language and memory in the information society. The first part addresses the present debate on privacy and the Internet from a psychoanalytic perspective (Freud, Lacan), taking into consideration the relationship between language and memory. The second part deals with the concept of secrecy with regard to oblivion and censorship in the context of the digital network as a space in which seemingly anyone can tell anything to everybody. The question of “what cannot be said” is posed from a psychoanalytic perspective. The third part explores the relationship between memory and secrecy. Secrecy is defined as a “dispositif of exclusion.” The concept of “information society” is contrasted to a “society of secrecy”. This strategy opens a debate about the question of secrecy in the information society that might also help to disambiguate this concept when applied to concrete situations and spheres in which the question of where to draw the line arises.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".