Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of our paper is to re-conceive the event and the site of the event as a relational environment of immanence occupied by invention in its processual emergence using the work of Deleuze and Guatarri, Massumi, Simondon and Whitehead. The event is usually understood as an activity “taking place” in a bounded container—a room—explicated in terms of Euclidian geometry and a Newtonian conception of space and time. This place within absolute space expresses potential for activity where naming its purpose conditions its teleological intent and functionally defines the event it can contain. Instead, we propose a conception of the space of the event as the locus of inclusion created by neighbourhoods of relational participation as process. This allows us to understand the event as a dynamic cohesion composed of the inter-penetration of immanent co-arisings of territorialities and bodies which constitute an individuated spacetime. Territorialities are understood as active, conditioned expanses of relation that go beyond the internalism/externalism debate: they are mappings of fuzzy-bounded, gradated zones of relational intensities. Bodies (human and non-human alike) are no longer pre-constituted static entities mechanically interacting with each other; they become dynamic individuations of a reciprocal, recursive relational causality within fields of experience. At the intersection of overlapping territorializations and bodies, thresholds must be crossed for the operative-self-solidarity to take place. Thus, the event becomes an immanent, coherent whole, where the process of coming-to-being requires a spatio-temporal convergence, a contemporaneous coming together of territories and bodies within the associated milieu.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".