Bibliographic record
Abstract
Failure and success: One cannot come to be without the other; one comes to be always by becoming the other. Inasmuch as failure constitutes the internal horizon of success, a success is always haunted by the coming of failure, whose arrival never fails to (re)open the possibility of an immanent reversal. In fact as well as in principle, failure cannot exist without success, and success does not fail to bring with it what will ruin it, for each unsettles itself in turn only to become an other, its own other. Indeed, nothing succeeds like a failure and nothing begins to fail if it were not successful. Failure transitions into success, one is (in) the other, one succeeds the other, and vice versa. What can be said about failure and communication? Perhaps not much; words fail. To bring up, or to return to, the topic of failure in communication does not imply that the structure of symbolic exchange harbors somewhere within it the ideal of success, as though a message sent could potentially, at some other moment, be fully received. Whatever we may think, not all can be communicated. There must be a limit to communication that functions simultaneously, and paradoxically, as a permit for its possibility. This limit is by no means a mystical negativity. Rather, it is the difference between what can be expressed and what remains inexpressible—the distance that succeeds all that has been said.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.546 | 0.379 |
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".