Bibliographic record
Abstract
Annual professional meetings are, like political conventions, the buggy whips of the twenty-first century. Even if they are not entirely obsolete, they serve a purpose much too limited to justify their ever-increasing expense. The pointlessness of political conventions derives from the preemptive prevalence of state primaries and caucuses. The annual professional meeting should have succumbed years ago to the ability of the Internet to sustain incessant jabber. That both institutions still survive owes more to the hedonistic aspects of human behaviour than to any practical thing. Years ago, I concluded that annual professional meetings were a waste of my time and money, inasmuch as (a) there was nobody in my racket that I felt compelled to impress and (b) smoking, drinking, and carousing until dawn were pastimes in which I could engage without the inconvenience of travelling to venues featuring outrageous prices for food and lodging. I suppose my first encounter with a sixty-five-dollar ‘registration’ fee did the trick. Registration for what? For the privilege of hearing a few turgid papers and seeing their authors skewered by dyspeptic audience members? For being able to walk among the book exhibits and listen to too many young PhDs try to flog their manuscripts to jaded press personnel? Then, five o’clock and Happy Hour at some local watering hole with the bored and the boring? Registration for that? Put the turgid papers on the Internet, I say, where any who really care can read them. And let prospective authors write actual letters to prospective publishers, so the latter can determine whether the former have any grasp of the English language whatsoever. As for smoking, drinking, and carousing until dawn, well, they aren’t good for you
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.202 | 0.045 |
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".