Riding Renga: Low Theory and Collective Critical Dissatisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Riding Renga: Low Theory and Collective Critical Dissatisfaction,” is a creative-collaborative project written by six authors, including graduate students and non-tenured faculty. Taking our cues from J. Halberstam’s definition of “low theory,” our article explores the limits and possibilities of collaborative work in the humanities through an array of texts, approaches, and voices. We engage with a deliberate mix of “low” and “high” texts, including the works of Kanye West, Shakespeare, Derrida, the Sugababes, Donna Haraway, John Cameron Mitchell, and Jose Munoz. We compare such texts not only to interrogate the divisions between low and high, but also to see what kind of affinities and subjugated knowledges may be unearthed or created in the process. The writing of the article itself—its very form—expresses our desire to think of alternative ways to conduct humanities research and build intellectual communities in the digital era.
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 | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".