MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2477287137 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139939799.029

The machines that write us: Social media and the evolution of the autobiographical impulse

2016· book-chapter· en· W2477287137 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Kitzmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicNarrative Theory and Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanityImpulse (physics)AestheticsPsychologyLiteratureSociologyHistoryArtPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among those interested in the study of autobiography, it has become a truism, or perhaps even a cliché, to state that the need to tell one's own story is a universal one, at least on this planet. The form and nature of this story is of course up for debate given the myriad ways in which humanity has represented individual experience over the course of millennia. Indeed, the very term 'story' should be framed by very large quotation marks given its associations with linearity and the primacy given to the individualised narrator. One person's 'story' could very well be another's random scribble, just as anonymous mutterings and whispers passed from one generation to the next can evolve into complex narrations of personal and collective experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicNarrative Theory and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207