Bridging the Gap: The Concept of Information in the Work of Marcia J. Bates and Birger Hjørland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of the debate over the concept of information between Marcia J. Bates and Birger Hjørland. To this end, the paper provides an overview of the Bates-Hjørland debate and places it in a historical context. It then outlines a research perspective that does not resolve the debate but instead, pragmatically, circumvents it. Cet article présente une analyse conceptuelle du débat entre Marcia J. Bates et Birger Hjørlandsur le concept d'information. À cette fin, l'article présente un résumé du débat de Bates-Hjørlandet le positionne ensuite dans une perspective historique. Enfin, il décrit une perspective derecherche qui ne résout pas le débat, mais, de façon pragmatique, le contourne.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".