Bibliographic record
Abstract
These essays address the equivocation in surveillance studies between control as a concept and control as physical coercion.The book arose from a 2013 conference at the University of Cambridge on the theme Changing Cultures of (In)Visibility.Those parentheses are a tell: the essays are clear descendants of postmodern theory.The genealogy goes back to Michel Foucault's ambiguous use of Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon both as a diagram for surveillance and as a diagram for architecture.The authors share Foucault's optimism that the ambiguity between conceptual and physical is productive.More precisely, the authors endorse Gilles Deleuze's suggestion that we can update Foucault's analysis to engage changes happening under late-capitalism.The reference here is Deleuze's brief article "Postscript on the Societies of Control," published in 1990 and quickly re-published in an English translation in the art history journal October.In it Deleuze argues that we have passed out of a Panoptical society of discontinuous enclosures and into a control society of continuous modulations.The essays in this collection, however, are not trial cases that test the validity of Deleuze's theses.Instead, the authors simply assume that Deleuze got it mostly right, and use detailed discussions of films, artworks, and, occasionally, buildings as apposite illustrations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".