MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598180393 · doi:10.1353/esc.2009.a404815

Academic Fashion: System and Practice

2009· article· en· W1598180393 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher Keep

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish studies in Canada · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Code (set theory)Relation (database)IdeologyContradictionSociologyOrder (exchange)EpistemologyLinguisticsAestheticsComputer scienceLawPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic Fashion: System and Practice Christopher Keep (bio) Good structuralist that for a time he was, Roland Barthes argues that in order to understand any particular instance of fashion it must be understood in relation to the system of constraints, social and linguistic, technological and ideological, which affords it meaning in the first place. “Every utterance” in a fashion magazine, Barthes writes, “constitutes a system of significations consisting of a signified whose terms are discrete, material, numerable, and visible: the garment; and an immaterial signified, which is, depending on the case, the world or Fashion” (25). It is in this manner that one could speak of academic fashion as a kind of code that supports, informs, and undergirds every scholarly activity, from choosing a dissertation topic to presenting a paper at Congress. It’s the felt presence of such a code, unexpressed yet making expression itself possible, that might make one think twice before putting a word under erasure in the high Derridean manner, much as an earlier generation might have felt equally hesitant about referencing Campbell’s theories of the hero’s quest. And it is this same code that today affords a certain glamour to animal studies, eco-criticism, or the connections between literature and neurology, making such topics seem both “timely” and, in the most overdetermined word in the academic lexicon, “relevant.” [End Page 10] There is, however, another sense of the phrase “academic fashion” that I want to consider here, one that understands it less as a system that allows one’s scholarship to seem either in or out of its critical moment and more as a distinctive ensemble of practices, a characteristic manner of study, and a relation of time to modernity. Let me begin by describing my own practices, or at least those that went into the writing of this position paper. When I received the invitation to participate in this esc forum, I began with a little etymological research, keying the phrase “academic fashion” into Google Books to see how it had been used in the past. Knowing that the search engine would give me the most recent occurrences first, I tried limiting the results to works published between 1800 and 1900, hoping by that means to dislocate the term from its contemporary association with vestimentary codes and practices. Scanning its database of more than ten million books in less time than it took me to sip my morning coffee, the search engine reported 204 instances of the phrase in the nineteenth century. In many instances, “academic fashion” referred to just that, the academic garb worn by fellows and tutors, most especially when they were attending a college meal or delivering an after-dinner speech. Such garb, of course, meant that academics in the nineteenth century never really had to worry about fashion in the manner we do today; their robes were never strictly in or out of style, though occasionally their facial hair, apparently, was. Mutton chops seem to have been no less of a mistake than the mullet was a century later. But there was another way in which the phrase was used that struck me as more promising for our present purposes. In several instances, the term “academic fashion” referred to a particular manner of writing, speaking, or acting. In some of these instances, to treat something in an academic fashion was to consider it without practical or real world experience of the matter, to see a problem merely in the abstract. The connotations here were usually derogatory, derived from the assumption that academics are wholly removed from the real-life concerns of ordinary people. But sometimes to treat something in an academic fashion was to consider it at great length, or in a scrupulously detailed way, going deep into the intellectual history of the subject and tracing its philological development over time. It is in this latter sense that J.E. Marr uses the phrase in 1896. In an address he gave to the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Marr begs to be pardoned for treating his “subject in an academic fashion” but explains that such a manner had been dictated by the...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish studies in CanadaSame topicFashion and Cultural TextilesFrench-language works237,207