Bibliographic record
Abstract
Play is intrinsic to human nature, a way of understanding ourselves, each other, the world we live in, so it's no surprise that several social scientists and philosophers have highlighted its importance to our cognitive and physical development, emotional growth, and social interaction. Play manifests itself most obviously in the form of games, which have their own structures and rules, but it's also vital to our sense of freedom, reminding us that we’re not entirely bound to society's rigid regulations, the often obstinate, unyielding codes of community. Free play provides an escape (or to be more precise, an excursion) from these rules, allowing us to frolic mentally and physically in the margins of necessity—and find pleasure in doing so. We can’t imagine a world without play because imagination is play in its purest, most personal form. It follows that art, as the product of imagination, is a form of play, and that creative artists of all kinds are, in essence, players. For certain artists, however, play is both the centre and the subject of their aesthetic: a unifying principle and a matter of philosophical enquiry in and of itself. In the context of twentieth-century literature, a number of such artists spring to mind: Italo Calvino, Georges Perec, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Raymond Queneau, and, perhaps most notably, Vladimir Nabokov.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".