MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066284403 · doi:10.7202/1005455ar

Telling versus Counting? A Media-Archaelogical Point of View

2011· article· en· W2066284403 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniques · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)Point (geometry)Function (biology)Digital mediaSociologyEpistemologyAestheticsHistoryLiteratureComputer scienceArtMathematicsPhilosophyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an epistemological tension between the cultural practices of telling and counting ; this tension can be seen as a function of mediatic conditions. The thesis of the following essay is a de-mystification of the digital age, a kind of media-archaeological amnesia: the numerical, which is the basis of digital technologies, has always been performed as a cultural practice of mediating reality. While story-telling has been successful on the discursive surface, an alternative way of processing the real has always been at work before it became technically materialized. To tell , after all, does not only mean “to give an account in speech or writing of events or facts”, but as well “to count things”. Rather than attempting a linear chronological trajectory, the historical relation in history between telling and counting might be described as reconfigurations according to different media.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it