Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both literary and historical studies have recently experienced a “temporal turn,” in which the cultural history of time has become an object of scholarly investigation. The “big history” has encouraged us to think about time on a longer scale, situating historical periods within extended arcs of centuries and human activity as a whole within millennia of natural history. But this turn to a deeper and vaster sense of historical time has, itself, a history, one that illuminates our current struggle to define the scale within which we understand human experience. At the great exhibitions of the late nineteenth century, from the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia to the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, visitors encountered representations of vast historical time in which humanity played a relatively insignificant role. The expositions seemed to tell a tale of historical change in which human beings became Malthusian populations, giving way in a quasi-evolutionary fashion before fetishized machinery and clockwork technology. The expositions and related cultural artifacts such as monumental clocks, literary narratives and sketches, and historical paintings thus presage, in their imaginings of inhuman time, not only the contemporary academic interest in “big history” and “deep time,” but also such cultural phenomena as the Clock of the Long Now, whose builders (engineers and technophiles associated with the computer industry in California) envision a clock so slow it would tell time into a future devoid of humanity. Thus, “deep time” becomes the fantasy of a world other than that made by human beings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".