MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726691455 · doi:10.3138/flor.32.006

Getting Technology and Not Getting Theory: The New Philology after Twenty-Five Years

2015· article· en· W2726691455 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilologyStructuralism (philosophy of science)MilitantGRASPEpistemologyAbstractionOrder (exchange)SociologyPoliticsLinguisticsPhilosophyComputer scienceFeminismPolitical scienceGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The New Philology, as presented by Stephen G. Nichols in the January 1990 issue of Speculum, offered the exciting prospect of combining poststructuralist theory with manuscript studies. But the two proved antagonistic in many ways. Theory was difficult to grasp and militant, calling for political engagement. It assumed the stability of late print culture, in which texts could be firmly identified and placed in chronological order. Drawing on structuralism and its analysis of synchronic linguistic systems, poststructuralist theory also tended towards abstraction and it problematized human intention, which manuscript scholars, for the most part, remain committed to recapturing.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.191 · 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