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
This paper is intended to engage the question of persuasion in a new way. Rather than isolating persuasion and examining its normative aspects independently, this paper situates persuasion alongside an understanding of difference. By understanding difference and persuasion together, the way we think of persuasion can be importantly transformed. If the conclusions of this paper are taken seriously, we will see that persuasion needs to be managed, rather than eliminated, yet not because of any external moral standard. Rather, the management of persuasion now follows from the necessity of persuasion as a supplement to impartial rationality. Normative questions about persuasion can now be understood as inextricably linked to the question of whether a theory understands and recognizes its own limitations; recognizes the difference within itself that precludes any chance of grounding questions in absolute answers. By recognizing that persuasion is a necessary structural feature of any rational theory, more meaningful conclusions about persuasion itself can be drawn.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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