Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article highlights a number of significant formal and conceptual parallels between Renaissance emblems and modern Internet memes. Both emblems and memes physically frame their pictorial subjects with texts. Both are profoundly multimodal and intertextual. While the juxtaposed connection between text and image is often subject to the arbitrary wit of the maker, there are rules to producing both that must be honored. In addition, both play upon the distinction between in-groups who 'get' the message and those who do not; and both exploit possibilities in their respective new media contexts. Makers of emblems and memes have both considered their work trifles, but with an undercurrent of seriousness to them, while their products have simultaneously enjoyed wide popularity and equally widespread disdain. I argue that academic discussions of memes discount the visual side of their subject. The result is that we struggle to notice parallels with close parallels from a past that equally attempts to express something heartfelt, make a performative statement, or simply share an in-joke.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 it