Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers autonomist practices of communication commoning amidst the neoliberal enclosures. I reflect on recent theoretical distinctions between the notion of the common and the commons and argue for an approach that brings them together both conceptually and in practice. One place where we find the common and the commons converge is in globalizing communication infrastructures. And it is through the infrastructure of global communication, I argue, that one of the principle political technologies of contemporary enclosure comes into sharpest focus: fear. If, as many observers contend, the political use of fear is instrumental to modern processes of enclosure, we can look to the urban communication infrastructure is a site of resistance to the double enclosure of the common and the commons because it is a site that encompasses both the means of mediation and the wealth of human sociality. To illustrate, I briefly discuss three examples in which the communication infrastructures are appropriated by social movements whose aim is to resist the politics of fear while they re-claim the communicational common/s.
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 | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".