Alighting the Milkmen, Bridegrooms, and Vagabonds: On Capital and Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the “thunderous denunciations” of mass culture by the Frankfurt School to the ambivalence of Habermas towards mass media, it has been argued that we have moved from culture-debating to culture-consuming publics (Peters, 1993). We have abandoned the coffee house in favour of grumpy cats and lulz. Furthermore, our societal damnation has only been reaffirmed and deepened by a move towards a form of cognitive capitalism. Berardi (2011) and Marazzi (1994), in their respective work on the politics of the language economy, have suggested that cognitive capitalism has given life to a new form of crisis; the crisis of capital today is not merely economic, it also a crisis of the social imagination, and language and discourse is political. It can be enclosed by capital. However, to stop our analysis there is not only pessimistic but also fails to see the emancipatory potential within language and our media systems. Although language and discourse can be enclosed by capital, I would argue it can never fully be co-opted. While media, especially the online sphere, are full of obfuscating pomp and trolling harangues, there remains a potential critical spark in the culture and poetry of everyday language. Echoing Stuart Hall, it is the extent to which popular culture and technology are sites of contestation and the degree to which they can be mobilized to destabilize systems of domination that they matter: “Otherwise, to tell you the truth, I don’t give a damn about it” (Hall, 1998). This paper will investigate the critical spark that language and popular culture can offer in an era of cognitive-capitalism—and who knows, maybe we’ll have a few lulz along the way.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".