Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo postula la necesidad de una nueva concepción de lo público digital en lo que a archivos audiovisuales se refiere. En lugar de pensar únicamente en la cuestión del acceso, se plantea también la inclusión del uso creativo del archivo como condición indispensable para la participación ciudadana en la institución del imaginario colectivo.Como objeto de estudio se ha escogido el NO-DO, pieza fundamental para entender la relación entre poder e imaginario en la sociedad española. El hecho de que se permita su visualización por streaming, pero no su libre descarga plantea una serie de interrogantes sobre lo público digital y la relación entre poder y archivo hoy, cuestiones que serán desgranadas a lo largo del artículo, aportando ejemplos de qué sucede cuando el archivo permite lo que Cornelius Castoriadis llamó "El imaginario radical instituyente".
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".