Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.009 |
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".