Bibliographic record
Abstract
We live in “interesting times,”perhaps wished upon us by the ancient and overworked curse that opens The Postmodern Adventure; and it just keeps on getting, well, more interesting. As convenient as the turn of the Christian calendar was for periodizing Western history, the dawn of the 21st century—the so-called new millennium—did little to orient our understandings of the world in which we live. During the past couple of decades, many have taken comfort in a notion that with new times would come ascension to the rapture of a postmodern, postideological (Wilson,2002),era.Yet periodization is problematic for cultural studies;cultural “shifts and turns are not breaks and ruptures”(Best & Kellner,2001:104) in the flow of time. Jameson (2001) suggests that periodizing which delineates postmodernity diminishes the fact that it is an extended and important phase of modernity and, whereas the latter is of such importance to the shaping of the human experience,we ought not to think it has passed. Steven Best and Douglas Kellner have been prolific (cf. Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations, 1991; The Postmodern Turn, 1997) among scholars who have contributed understandings of the milieu to which the label of postmodernism is affixed.While The Postmodern Adventure (2001), might at first seem an attempt to prolong the agony and the ecstasy of the discourse, Best and Kellner—who in 1997 contextualized the turn toward postmodernity by theoretical review—now veer away from mapping by periodization and toward studying both the turn and the terrain in popular culture and contemporary developments in science and technology. T
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".