Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural changes in higher education and scholarly publishing have raised new questions about the usefulness of the dissertation as precursor to scholarly publication. This essay reconsiders the process of turning a dissertation into a book manuscript. Recent manuals about dissertation writing like From Dissertation to Book and Revising Your Dissertation are helpful but often provide overly broad conceptualizations about how to assess a dissertation and revise it into a book. Likewise, academics tend to describe the revision process in conceptual terms by focusing on too impressionistic ways of distinguishing the difference between a dissertation and a book. In addition, they spend surprisingly little time discussing the methods and techniques of writing and revision that authors actually use. Drawing from my own recent experience as an example, I offer practical advice as well as theoretical reflections on the research and writing process by which dissertations can become book manuscripts.
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 | 0.053 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".