MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894225001 · doi:10.7202/1050987ar

The Cybernetic Layer of Juri Lotman’s Metalanguage

2018· article· en· W2894225001 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sémiotiques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberneticsMetalanguageEpistemologyCognitive scienceMechanism (biology)Focus (optics)Computer scienceSociologyPhilosophyLinguisticsPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most accounts of Juri Lotman’s legacy note his interest in information theory and cybernetics which is closely tied to his desire to use exact methods in the humanities. However, this connection itself has hardly been studied. This article focuses on a pair of terms with cybernetic origins found throughout Lotman’s works : “ mechanism ” and “ ustrojstvo ”. I try to show that these terms and the way they are used are not accidental but belong to an important strand in Lotman’s thought. An overview is presented of Lotman’s direct contacts with cybernetics and cyberneticians, and how the terms “ ustrojstvo ” and “mechanism” found their way into his metalanguage. The main focus is on exploring how Lotman understands this pair of terms. Translation problems related to them are also discussed.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.264 · 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