Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter analyses online users’ debates about the generic classification and ancestry of “blogs” and “Internet diaries,” looking in particular at users’ defensive definitions and meta-generic commentary that would distinguish the blog from the diary. I argue that these directives draw on traditional generic stereotypes, reproduced from print culture, that associate the diary with the narcissistic, feminine, and amateur, qualities apparently antithetical to self-styled “bloggers.” Since actual practice does not necessarily support a tenable distinction between blogs and diaries, I suggest that such genre claims arise from and protect particular communities’ ideals about the World Wide Web—and therefore its forms of communication—as novel. These often-heated commentaries offer opportunities to explore how communities understand and invest in genre in an evolving situation. A blog is not a diary. A diary is where you store private information and self reflection about your life, snapshotted feelings, etc. A blog is publicly there for anyone to see….A blog is a living autobiography… –Austin (2006 19 Oct.) Weblog, n. A frequently updated web site consisting of personal observations, excerpts from other sources, etc., typically run by a single person, and usually with hyperlinks to other sites; an online journal or diary. –Oxford English Dictionary (2003) Defining “blog” is a fool’s errand. –Jeff Jarvis (2005 27 Aug.).
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".