Reflections on Work and Activism in the 'University of Excellence.'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a critical reflection on the possibilities for activism and the conditions of work within the contemporary university of excellence. I draw upon my experience as a student, and then as a faculty member, in North American universities of excellence (a la Bill Reading: The University in Ruin). Unlike the earlier university of 'culture' in which what one said had a potential impact, the measure of success in the contemporary university of 'excellence' is more focused upon how much one might say (in print in the 'right' journal). "Reflections on work and activism" presents three linked, but autonomous stories that offer counsel to our audience on the ways in which engaged progressive political action might intersect with the realities of everyday work and life in the contemporary university of excellence.
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".