Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspired by the carrier bag theory of fiction let us look for alternate ways to do our work. We do this by worlding: by attuning to and melting into the subject(s) of our research; gathering and gaining situated knowledges, interwoven with multiple threads of imagination and desire. But then gathering and gaining is based on collecting: data, objects, subjects, situations, relations; submitted into an order of things, shifted into storages, from time to time put on display. Imagination and desire are stripped off in this process and stored separately, if at all. That’s why we need a different mind-set, a different set of methods, and a different set of tools. For our findings and our creations, for our research and our inspiration we will build a wunderkammer. Not the old cabinet of curiosities based on items taken away from others, other places, stolen from life. But a new structure for our wild-at-heart pluriverse; one that is our workshop and our toolbox rather than a storage. One that is probably closer to an assembly, a parliament, a party, a network, a collaboratory for all kinds of agencies and for agencies of all kinds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 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".