Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twists and Turns: Splits, Snowballs and Tweaks in Cultural Theory ¤ When colleagues of mine first learned of the conference "Re: Turns," on which this issue of eTopia is based, their almost unanimous response was to note how exciting and brilliant they found the theme.Some commented that they always felt called upon to write within a particular theoretical turn, rather than about it, and that the invitation to reflect on turns from a positon of temporary exteriority felt liberating.On the other hand, the challenge of writing about theoretical turns, I want to suggest, is that it requires that we disengage ourselves from some of the more pious ideas we might have about intellectual work.To think about turns is to admit that the agendas guiding our work do not simply arise through the appearance of political or cultural questions in the world.It is to acknowledge that, while the world poses questions to us all the time, these questions are given form within worlds of scholarship, which, at some very basic level, are like stock markets of rising and failing theoretical fashions Turns are political in their own distinctive ways, but their political dimensions reside in the ways in which they organize intellectual work as a communal activity.This is distinct from seeing turns as one of the channels through which the world communicates, to us, its questions and urgencies.An attentiveness to turns may reveal something else, as well: that the state of theoretical thinking in a given moment is not usually the direct result of collective deliberation, as if everyone in a discipline or subfield were forever examining theoretical alternatives in order to agree upon those which seem most effective.Rather, we might usefully think of changes of theoretical perspective in the energetic terms of the cycle, as arcs of
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".