Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the modern financial system, the ability to create money is in the hands of a few central institutions. Blockchain networks, and by extension cryptocurrencies, were created with the promise of giving that power to users. The most well-known example of a blockchain technology achieving such decentralization is Bitcoin, but its popularity has arguably been matched by an alternative-currency named Dogecoin. Unlike other cryptocurrencies, which have marketed themselves on differentiating technical features, Dogecoin’s allure likely stems from its cultural roots as a meme. Where cryptocurrency is typically regarded as a difficult topic to grasp, the introduction of Doge’s (2013) most popular meme, into the crypto-space increased crypto’s accessibility to new participants. Consequently, Dogecoin exists in two economies: the financial economy and the cultural meme economy, with the latter having unprecedented tangible impacts on the former. Dogecoin’s unique cultural significance provides an example of how blockchain can succeed in promoting alternative money systems. At its peak in 2021, Dogecoin achieved a market capitalization of $88 billion. Where analysis of the Dogecoin phenomenon is lacking in the current literature, we will fill that gap with a case study of Dogecoin. By studying Dogecoin as a combination of money and meme, we can further our understanding of how to better promote social finance initiatives through the virality of memes.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".