MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077600573 · doi:10.1177/2043820612449300

Power and the problem of composition

2012· article· en· W2077600573 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogues in Human Geography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPosthumanist Ethics and Activism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemporalityComposition (language)EpistemologyPower (physics)Assemblage (archaeology)SociologyScale (ratio)Deleuze and GuattariPhilosophyHistoryGeographyLinguisticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To accept the constitutive power of assemblages as a composition of forces rather than a form, is to accept that the scale, composition and temporality of ‘the thing' in question are not pre-given, but are determined by ‘the thing' by going to the limits of its power. Divergent approaches in assemblage thinking differ in terms of how they understand power relations. I propose a point of commonality between approaches drawing on Spinoza's distinction between potentia and potere, and Deleuze and Guattari's (2000) distinction between legitimate and illegitimate forms of synthesis. This doubled concept of power (and of synthesis) provides a basis for distinguishing between oppressive and emancipatory assemblages.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · 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