Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter distinguishes between two ways to believe in an age of relativism and postmodernism. The first form smacks of fideism, and it is without any other cause besides that of naï self-fulfillment. Part of the cult of the self, its expression is “think positive” and its content is self-entitlement. It is an uncomplicated form of belief that has great currency in a consumer-oriented society. A prime example can been seen in the movie Polar Express. The apologue of this major production was that any dream will come true so long as one believes that it will. Hence, this form of belief is also relativistic. The second form of belief is properly postmodern in that its aim is to view the real in the imaginary. The movie Finding Neverland exemplifies this form of belief. Based on the life of J. M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan, the movie conflates real life events with imaginary storylines to take the heroine to Neverland or to her death. In this way, the imagination provokes and sustains the distanciation between the subject and her fantasy and brings the real of facticity to the fore by way of an imaginary trope.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".