Flickering, Spilling and Diffusing Body/Knowledge in the Posthuman Early Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following Deleuze and Whitehead, we begin with a movement from without, a process, never with a ‘subject’ of a process. This page merely opens onto what Manning and Massumi describe as ‘a commotion of relational activity, each vying to be written down, to be the conduit of the field’s summing up in a determinate expression’ (2014, p. 12): Texts are traversed by a movement that comes from without, that does not begin on the page (nor the preceding pages), that is not bounded by the frame of the book; it is entirely different from the imaginary movement of representation or the abstract movement of concepts that habitually take place among words and within the mind of the reader. (Deleuze, cited in Blondel, 1985, p. 145) Amid this commotion, the moment of beginning our chapter is defined by what our senses are compelled to attend to (Mukhopadhyay, 2008). Yet even before our pen and paper begin to seduce each other in virtual intimacy, relational activity is already at work across heterogeneous fields of experience: the echoes of an invitation to write; our calling to familiar systems of linguistic symbols; collaborating in the imaginary of the emerging book; awkward relations with deforestation; seductive ecologies of preceding chapters; the ebb and flow across French, Canadian, Italian and American theorists; the shifting terrain and traditions of philosophy; the politics of the printing press and technology; the nourishing workings of the dorsal aorta and a multiplicity of intensely vibrating senses. 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".