MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920477014 · doi:10.1515/css-2019-0008

Of Thinkers and Tinkerers

2019· article· en· W2920477014 on OpenAlex
Eliseo Fernández, Cary Campbell

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Semiotic Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnoscienceContext (archaeology)Presentation (obstetrics)EpistemologyTechnological determinismNoveltySociologyCognitive scienceHistoryPsychologyPhilosophySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cary Campbell (ed.): This paper is one of four that were approved for publication in this journal prior to Fernández’s passing in 2017. Many of these backlogged articles did not have abstracts, so I have had to create them based on Fernández 's own in-text summary. In this brief presentation a crucial technological innovation of the early twentieth century – the invention of the triode thermionic valve – is used as a springboard for a historically informed discussion of the complex interrelations of theory and praxis in the generation of technological novelty. This episode was chosen for its critical role in triggering a whole chain of developments that culminated in the growing network of technologies and economic infrastructures that underpin our so-called “information society” and the evolving role of “technoscience.” This represents a starting point in a broadening cascade of innovations that led to the rise of television, digital computers and the expanding web of artifacts that shape our daily existence today. In the present era of technoscience, scientific and technological research are so closely entangled that it is hard to discern their respective natures and interrelations. Nevertheless, it is possible to partially distinguish both their common characteristics and their contrasting differences (i.e. in goals, cognitive styles, methods, etc.). In this context, some reflections are put forward on the activity of “tinkering” as a cognitive instrument (a form of what Peirce called Abduction ) in the generation of technological novelty.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.240 · 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