Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This article proposes enchantment as an ethnographic method that attunes us to the world‐building potential of dreams and the imagination, as well as to the structural forces that simultaneously constitute human lives. To be enchanted is to experience wonder, to let oneself be moved. This concept emerges from my fieldwork with young musicians in Venezuela who, as residents of urban barrios, confront structural violence and sociopolitical crises. I study how through music and stories they conjure worlds they call their own, acts of creation that persist in spite of social decay. By engaging in flights of the imagination of possibilities foreclosed by their material environments, and by portraying and experiencing themselves and their communities otherwise, they refuse to be determined by dominant logics and rationalities. Letting myself be enchanted by and with them allows me to account for spaces of experience that may escape measurement yet have latent social and political potential. A method of enchantment counterbalances the emphasis on structures of domination espoused by critical thinking in the social sciences. Holding the critical and enchanted approach in creative tension allows us to recognize the creative potential of play, fantasy, and music that emanate from their own force in the crevices of systems of power that sway people’s destinies.
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 | 0.081 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
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".