Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metics, or those who live in-between several different cultures, nations, races, ethnicities, or identities, have a major epistemological advantage: they are more likely to develop a way of knowing, different from Western rationality, that could help transform oppressive institutions and identities. I will call this way of knowing metis, and argue that it allows one to handle more effectively ambiguous and complex situations. I will define it as the art of playing with contradictions, and maintain that it generates new knowledge from the tension between divergent forces. Even though metis works with or through contradictions, it does not violate the principle of non-contradiction, and in this sense is not incompatible with rationality. In fact, rationality is unsustainable without metis. To elaborate these ideas I will rely on several concepts developed by Chicana writer Gloria Anzaldúa and Eastern European philosopher Merab Mamardashvili. Speaking from different cultural and geopolitical contexts, both thinkers maintain that it is epistemologically more advantageous to position oneself in-between major cultures and identities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".