Five more steps and you will be a new person: the procedural closure of the experiential field in Every Day the Same Dream
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will provide an analysis of the editorial game Every Day the Same Dream (EDSD). EDSD assumes the specific characteristics of a thesis novel (a “thesis game”, in this specific case) which Suleiman (1983: 1) defined as a type of novel which explicitly puts forth “recognized body of doctrine or system of ideas” and which has an “unambiguous dualistic system of values [...] rules of action addressed to the reader [and a] doctrinal intertext” (Suleiman, 1983: 54). According to the principle of procedural rhetoric (Bogost, 2008), the thesis of EDSD is mainly defended through the formal structure of the game, especially in the problem solving processes performed by the player. We therefore analyze EDSD as a thesis game by putting forward the concept of “micro-apparatus of procedural closure of the experiential field”, which arises from the meeting of hermeneutic and cognitive sciences, the objective being to describe the strategies used to disseminate a persuasive message among players and to analyze its reception.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".