…working with (a) rhizoanalysis…and…working (with) a rhizoanalysis…
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this conversation rhizoanalysis is introduced as a way of processing through an assemblage involving research methodology, generation of data and analytical possibilities entwined within. As a research methodology, rhizomethodology (Author, 2009) is a way of putting the Deleuzo-Guattarian philosophical imaginary of rhizome (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) to work; it is a way of working (with) data, complexly. With/in/alongside this methodological approach, the rhizoanalysis becomes the inquiry of the research, happening throughout the whole research process. The analysis is not a constant thing relegated to a place of its own, rather, the rhizoanalysis as ‘some of rhizome’ (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 9) happens throughout. With/in/through processes of thinking rhizome in flux, working rhizome (im)provis(at)ionally is an ongoing experiment with and exploration of my own thinking. Rhizoanalysis (dis)continuously (e)merges with/in/through every dimension of the thinking, ebbing and flowing with/in/through matters of always already becoming so that writing (about) rhizoanalysis is also affected by writing (the) methodology and doing (the) rhizoanalysis; nothing was/is separate or linear in the thinking or writing up~down of the research project drawn on here. Rather, there was/is an ongoing intermingling of data, methodology and analysis with theorising the literature and practicing the theory, each becoming the other(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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it