MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W287710486 · doi:10.1177/1354856516679635

Writing while wandering

2017· article· en· W287710486 on OpenAlexafffund
Lai-Tze Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueConvergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital Media
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsNarrativeContingencyReading (process)Computer scienceDigital mediaNegotiationMultimediaAestheticsSociologyLinguisticsWorld Wide WebArtSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In digital writing, there is a discrepancy between the dynamicism that is associated with born-digital narratives and the rigidly encoded structures of content management that shape digital media technologies. Locative media narratives – site-specific narratives that are designed for accessing digital mobile devices – are therefore interesting because they cannot be written without reference to real space and are subject to the dynamic relationships that device users have with material space. This article reveals the ontological complexities of digital reading and digital writing for the locative media narrative user. Writing and reading digitally through locative media narratives, I argue, require users’ dynamic and reflexive negotiation between the experience of reading and the material circumstances that offer insight into the element of contingency in digital writing. Specifically, I explore the element of contingency as a ‘counter’ to paradigms of standardization and rationalization during the age of modernity; its nullification through the introduction of predefined digital parameters; its resilience in the figure of the walker; and its contemporary resilience in the media user. Contingency is thus delineated as a condition through which a dynamic narrative can emerge between the parameters of digital writing and a user’s narrative play. The material spaces explored are contingent upon which paths users choose to take; also, the produced story is contingent upon the narrative trajectory that is formed through users’ wandering through material space. As users choose real spaces with historiocultural contexts, this article shows that locative media narratives allow us to write digital narratives while also engaging in the discourses of material space, media materiality, and emerging forms of narrative. In turn, by conceptualizing and identifying dynamic forms of narrative for how they complicate notions of reading and writing, this article proposes the initial shaping of a narratology for dynamic digital narratives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.017
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.006

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConvergence The International Journal of Research into New Media TechnologiesSame topicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital MediaFrench-language works237,207