Connecting the dots: Integrating modular networks and narrativity in digital scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lev Manovich posits that new media and the World Wide Web are modular or layered in nature, similar to structural computer programming in that their distinct elements are combinative while retaining independence. Modular structures and systems (such as Lego, mobile apps, computer software, and even language itself) exchange precision, specific connectivity, narrative stability, and a focus on progressive products for flexibility, general compatibility, adaptiveness and a focus on aggregative processes. These attributes are well suited for new knowledge environments: Peter Schillingsburg sees modularity at the heart of dynamic digital collaboration and Susan Brown (et al) liken the modularity of digital projects to the cumulative nature of academic periodicals but caution that such projects are still often judged “as if they were a book,” or by their apparent finishedness. While scholarly journal articles and monographs, as finished products of scholarly activity, are not often constructed to demonstrate modularity or to function as modular components in broader arenas of scholarly communication, they could be reimagined as such (beyond citation). This is something that the NewRadial environment encourages through its modular design and in the kinds of modular scholarly communication that it facilitates. Lev Manovich soutient que les nouveaux médias et le World Wide Web sont de nature modulaire et superposée, semblable à la programmation informatique structurale, en ce sens que leurs éléments distincts sont combinatoires tout en conservant leur indépendance. Les structures et les systèmes modulaires (comme Lego, les applications mobiles, les logiciels, et même le langage lui-même) échangent une précision, une connectivité spécifique, une stabilité narrative, et une attention aux produits progressifs en termes de flexibilité, de compatibilité générale, d'adaptabilité, et d'attention aux procédés agrégatifs. Ces attributs sont bien adaptés aux nouveaux environnements de connaissances: Peter Schillingsburg voit la modularité au cœur de la collaboration numérique dynamique et Susan Brown et al. font un rapprochement entre la modularité des projets numériques et la nature cumulative des revues universitaires, mais précise toutefois que ces projets sont souvent jugés « comme s'ils étaient un livre », ou d'après leur aspect fini apparent. Bien que les articles et les monographies de périodiques, comme produits finis de l'activité érudite, ne sont pas souvent édifiés de façon à démontrer la modularité ou à fonctionner comme éléments modulaires dans les arènes plus vastes de la communication érudite, ils pourraient être ré-imaginés comme tels (au-delà de la citation). C'est un concept que l'environnement NewRadial encourage par l'entremise de sa conception modulaire et dans les types de communication érudite modulaire qu'il facilite.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".