Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Writeable Web Susan Brown The Web was writeable from the start, prevailed thanks to its openness, although it required separate writing tools until “Web 2.0” made participation in digital textuality ubiquitous. The introduction of spellcheckers in browsers from 2006 indicates the increasing blurring of reading into writing. We are witness to multitudinous textual incunabula as creative and scholarly discourse is transformed through a process open to more people than have ever before participated in the emergence of a new medium. Authority and originality, location and relation, reading and analysis, attention and curation, transmission, publication, and archiving are all being profoundly disrupted by text technologies that manifest new forms of collectivity and new powers to harm. Writing was always already dialogical and scholarship already collaborative, but new streams of networked language challenge us, in ways we now only partially comprehend, with their massive shareability and mashable dynamic forms, to rethink the possibilities of writing and of scholarship. Susan Brown Professor and Canada Research Chair in Collaborative Digital Scholarship School of English and Theatre Studies University of Guelph, and University of Alberta Copyright © 2015 Association of Canadian College and University Teachers
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".