Rosi Braidotti and Maria Hlavajova: "Posthuman Glossary"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Posthuman Glossary is a presentation of the conceptual work done in the envisioned "Critical PostHumanities" (Braidotti 2019) that substantiates the theoretical framework for this emerging field of studies.Particularly in Posthuman Knowledge, Braidotti lists the institutionalization of posthumanist studies: Using the familiar transhumanist-posthumanist distinction, she counters the transhumanist Oxford's "Future of Humanity Institute" and Cambridge's "Centre for the Study of Existential Risk" with the posthumanist "Human Futures" project in Aarhus (an affiliation of these reviewers), the German "Anthropocene Project", Linköpings "PostHumanities Hub", Brock's "Posthumanism Research Institute" in Canada, the New York-based "Posthuman Research Group", etc. Braidotti seeks to unite these last-mentioned critical institutions in an over-arching category.The reason we are repeating Braidotti's listing is that the Posthuman Glossary, interpreted in light of her recent publication, appears as a strategic documentation of the actual work in the Critical PostHumanities.It is a peep into the Deleuzian production of concepts within a Foucauldian focus on institutionalization -a crossover of impure metaphysics that has been characteristic of Braidotti's elaboration of the French radical thinkers since Patterns of Dissonance (1991).We recognize the strategic usefulness of an over-arching categorization of posthumanist studies, though we are critical as to whether the posthuman imagery risks blurring in the smoke of conceptual explosion offered by the Posthuman Glossary.This critical point is elaborated in our evaluation on the sections of art.The ambition of Braidotti and the Posthuman Glossary seems to be an expansion of a phenomenon, the posthuman, into a hybrid formation that is at once 1) a post-or transdisciplinary discourse, 2) a paradigm of critical posthumanism and 3) a vision for what the university can become.One can perhaps label an anti-Humboldtian Bildung that intends to direct the knowledge production of the Humanities towards a solidary project that realizes the "posthuman turn" in research and practice.The Posthuman Glossary is
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.010 |
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".