Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the relation between selection power and selection labor for information retrieval (IR). It is the first part of the development of a labor theoretic approach to IR. Existing models for evaluation of IR systems are reviewed and the distinction of operational from experimental systems partly dissolved. The often covert, but powerful, influence from technology on practice and theory is rendered explicit. Selection power is understood as the human ability to make informed choices between objects or representations of objects and is adopted as the primary value for IR. Selection power is conceived as a property of human consciousness, which can be assisted or frustrated by system design. The concept of selection power is further elucidated, and its value supported, by an example of the discrimination enabled by index descriptions, the discovery of analogous concepts in partly independent scholarly and wider public discourses, and its embodiment in the design and use of systems. Selection power is regarded as produced by selection labor, with the nature of that labor changing with different historical conditions and concurrent information technologies. Selection labor can itself be decomposed into description and search labor. Selection labor and its decomposition into description and search labor will be treated in a subsequent article, in a further development of a labor theoretic approach to information retrieval.
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 | 0.014 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".