Genealogy and Archaeology: Analyzing Generational Positioning in Historical Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article introduces an analytical perspective which can assist in charting generation-specific modes of sense-making and self-understanding in memory accounts, biographical and historical narratives. The point of departure is the double meaning of “generation” as it is found in the theoretic debate. On the one hand, generational positioning is informed by the genealogical sequence of parents, children and grand-children–corresponding with the intergenerational transmission of memories. On the other hand, we the fact of being part of a specific age cohort provides a framework for the interpretation of former experiences, mirrored in Karl Mannheim’s concept of the generation as a community of shared experiences. The two modes of generational selfpositioning, which are coined as “genealogical” and “archaeological” here, inform processes of historical sense-making and interpretation. Which type of generational “logic” applies has a major impact on the ways in which coherent and meaningful links between past, present and future are constructed. Tracing up generational positioning in memory accounts and narratives of the past can, thus, be used as an analytical tool for getting access to narrative patterns–and to the functioning of historical consciousness as a provider of identity and orientation. This will be illustrated below with empirical evidence.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".