Bibliographic record
Abstract
W eblogs (blogs for short) were a grassroots phenomenon a few dec- ades ago but now number in the hundreds of millions.In Blogging, Jill Walker Rettberg's objective is to detail the history of blogs and their place in the ecosystem of the World Wide Web, as well as to provide a survey of blog-related research and theoretical literature.Rettberg also addresses scholarly debates that intersect with blogging as a form of online communication.As a professor of digital culture at the University of Bergen, Norway and a scholar of electronic literature and self-representation online (as well as a blogger herself), Rettberg is well-positioned to tackle this topic.Blogging is written in accessible language that will appeal to the scholar and lay reader alike.The 2 nd edition of Blogging incudes updates and revisions that reflect rapid developments in the blogosphere during the five years since the 1 st edition was published.Most of the examples from longstanding blogs are the same as in the 1 st edition, and these continue to be relevant to the history of blogging.Rettberg has eliminated the section on how to create your own blog because instructions are now easy to find on the internet.The 2 nd edition is divided into seven chapters that situate blogging within the context of socio-historical shifts in the technology, communication, journalism and marketing fields.Rettberg supplements the material with supporting examples from active blogs.The magnitude of the topic is handled skillfully, even though readers may sense a disconnect between globally diverse examples of blog-related research and occurrences that encompass everything from the popularity of craft blogs in Belgium (2013, 26) to limitations on social network usage in Iran (80).Rettberg begins by defining blogs and provides a valuable taxonomy of contemporary blog sub-genres (personal, filter and topic-driven) (Ch.1).This typology seems largely derivative of Herring, et al.'s (2004) similarly tripartite categorization of blogs (personal journals, filters and knowledge-logs) which Rettberg surprisingly does not cite.Rettberg uses four popular blogs as exemplars for the typology, all of which are American-based.The question of whether blogs are a genre or a medium
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.150 | 0.137 |
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".