Click Here: Unsettling Scholarly Writing Practices and Knowledge Representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In fine arts, a diptych usually consists of two paintings that are hinged or bound together to form a single piece that opens like a book. In my interpretation of the form, I have written this paper as a textual diptych. It consists of two halves—each of which provides a slightly different perspective and response to the question: How might scholars work to unsettle conventional practices of academic representation in order to allow for different knowledges and understandings to emerge? Further, I wonder in what ways I might expand how and what I write to include as-yet-unsanctioned thoughts, insights, sources, forms, and habits in order to unsettle conventional academic scholarship. This piece of work is my current contribution to the conversation on what it means to write academically, to represent one’s scholarship.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.013 |
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".