Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagination is rooted in experience, and is thus born in difference and unevenness.The relationship of imagination to social change is, at first glance, a straightforward one: imagination precedes change, at least change that's deliberate.You can't create something you can't conceive of, at least not deliberately.But what leads to that conception in the first place?Is the world made up of imaginative geniuses waiting to make their marks (as some of us learned in grammar school)?Or are there conditions and contexts that make it easier or more difficult to think in ways that are radically new?Imagination begins in experience; it is here that the conditions of possibility are shaped and determined.But this is not a mechanistic determination, and it cannot be complete: if imagination were wholly shaped by experience, we'd of course be little more than automatons, drones going about our daily work.All literature, culture, and art would probably look like Second Life or other equallydreadful online worlds in which all the possibilities of virtual reality are mustered to simply clone the world in which we already live (capitalism, bad fashion, and all).Clearly imagination is much broader than experience.But it begins here.And because our experiences of the world are different, it begins in difference: different social relations, different histories, different experiences of race, gender and sexuality, of identity and belonging.And thus imagination begins in unevenness.If imagination begins with experience, unradical imagination never leaves it: when it acts on the world, it changes it, but only into something already recognizable.We can think of this as the imagination of liberalism: whether as a -natural‖ governing party, change that's easy to believe in, or liberal economics.It's not unimaginative; it's just not radically imaginative.And this is an important caveat; it would be wrong to suggest that capital is
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".