Bibliographic record
Abstract
The migration of science into literary studies risks importing an over-simplified conception of “the” scientific method. To avoid this pitfall, it will be crucial to nurture a conception of scientific praxis grounded in historically established methods from a range of scientific disciplines, rather than in the physics-centered prescriptions of much 20th Century philosophy of science. Doing so may require reconsideration of the forms of explanation and investigation that are appropriate for semi-autonomous, agentic capacities (e.g., generating a meaningful interpretation). Because such capacities resist externalist forms of explanation and experimentation, it is important to reconsider the first- and third-person methods, the role of experimentation, and the importance of classificatory procedures in their descriptive explication. Moreover, acknowledging the conceptual precision that derives both from operational definition (in one form) and connoisseurship (in another) may support articulation of a multi-faceted conception of science that is apt for studies of literature.
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 | 0.024 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.117 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".