MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242028643 · doi:10.1080/1600910x.2019.1618358

Liminal abstraction

2019· article· de· W4242028643 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDistinktion Journal of Social Theory · 2019
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiminalityAbstractionComputer scienceProgramming languageEpistemologyPhilosophyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper surveys discussions of abstraction in the sociological and political economic literature that tie it a relation to the material. This is developed from the work of Alfred Sohn-Rethel. Under the rubric of the liminal, the diachronic interchange between these poles will be examined to better understand how the Abstract saturates the material. This entails not only the purely Abstract but involves Virtualities that are intangible, Ideal-Real. This lends reality an air of added dimensions, expanding the Real beyond the merely material into a non-Euclidean, ‘abstract space’. This spatialization of abstraction is introduced within the work of Sohn-Rethel but has not been remarked upon. While this multidimensional topological space appears to have magical qualities, Turner’s understanding of liminality is drawn upon to understand the dynamic quality of abstraction as a relation and process between the Abstract and Material. Liminality mobilizes the Virtual or ideal-real. Liminal rituals are epistemic ‘sociotechniques’ (cf. Krämer, Siegert) involving abstraction and the management of abstraction through simple ritual action. Abstraction does not pull away from as much as extend and configure the Real (Lyotard).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it