Bibliographic record
Abstract
This entry explores intersectional data analysis rooted in social justice in the social sciences and humanities. The datalogical turn foregrounds the proliferation of algorithmic processing and data as an emergent regime of power/knowledge in the digital datafication of everyday life. Big Data, digital methods, and data studies are buzzwords that privilege modes of knowledge production to elevate quantitative, abstracted, and disembodied approaches over qualitative data approaches. However, database technologies and human experiences are always necessarily mutually constituted. Infrastructures, categorizations, and algorithmic processing are commonly black‐boxed and therefore invisible with the consequence that data generated is never raw, but always cooked. These processes are not devoid of different forms of cultural prejudices and discriminations, rather they are often used to exacerbate gendered, sexed, racialized, and classed power hierarchies. Subtopics to be discussed in this entry include feminist ethics of care and alternative data studies; examinations of digital infrastructures including e‐waste and assemblages of hardware and software; and critiques of data gathering and data visualizations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.004 |
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".