The hipster’s dilemma: What is analogue or digital in the post-digital society?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article sets out to explore the phenomenon of willing digital disconnect by reconsidering and reworking some of the central ideas that currently fall under the umbrella of technological non-use. The presupposition of binary divisions between the dichotomies ‘users’–‘non-users’ and ‘analogue’–‘digital’ is put into question as the article explores the taking up of predigital technologies and the explicit and implicit disengagement from contemporary digital technologies. In short, this article asks: What does the contemporary revival of analogue technologies reveal about the social and material processes that constitute ‘use’, and what are the implications for the conceptual division of the terms analogue and digital? To answer these questions, the article draws on assemblage theory to describe the material and expressive performativity of social structure – that is, how individuals interact with technology. Empirical evidence comes from three illustrative cases where predigital technologies have replaced an existing digital alternative. Results emphasize the importance of understanding the material and expressive reconfigurations that underline technological use in a post-digital society in order to move beyond binary concepts such as analogue/digital or use/non-use as well as concepts such as the digital divide.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".