Through Clio's Lens: Exploring Disciplinary, Intellectual, and Historical Orientations in the History of Photography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This conceptually driven exploratory discussion of history of photography serves to capture and situate the use of photography and photographic evidence in history journals. Since its invention in 1839 in Europe, photography has evolved to assume its near hegemonic ubiquity throughout the world, permeating media in general. Gaining insight into the history of photography as a disciplinary formation and specialization addresses disciplinary issues beyond the confines of art history, of which photography has been identified traditionally as a sub-field. To identify global and overarching characteristics of the literature, Historical Abstracts was consulted in order to collect and classify articles in the years 1961–1970, 1971–1980, 1981–1990, 1991–2000, and 2001–2010. Further analysis of the data revealed major characteristics of history of photography that appeared in a spectrum of journals beyond the purview of art history journals. Selected subjects were used to further articulate the complex nature of the history of photography, bringing into focus general disciplinary and intellectual currents animating these findings.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".