Bibliographic record
Abstract
As noted in the previous chapters, this book undertakes a three-leveled analysis of social performance by starting with Goffman’s middle level (the social situation of action and interpretation) and moving into the depth-psychological territory of Sartrean existentialism and Lacanian psychoanalysis, even as the latter externalizes any depth by throwing it onto the symbolic field and the other. In this final theoretical chapter, I reverse course and examine the wider field of meaningful objects, symbolic and material, that serves as the stage and in another sense supplies the props for social performance. Goffman, as noted, showed relatively little interest in macroscopic sociological thinking, although there are traces of it in Frame Analysis , much as he avoided conventional social psychology almost completely. It is thus intriguing and perhaps remarkable that he shares so much, particularly at the level of basic philosophical assumptions, with the social critic and philosopher Jean Baudrillard. Baudrillard, along with fellow French social theorist Gilles Lipovetsky, will serve as a key thinker in my attempt to apprehend the current social theatre in all its symbolic diversity. Baudrillard and Lipovetsky, while offering radically different political diagnoses— pessimistic and optimistic, roughly—of the contemporary world, share remarkably similar basic assumptions regarding the symbolic dynamics of this world and indeed of the constitution and functioning of social subjects within it. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".