Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing a book is an odd activity.It takes a long time, involves a lot of solitary labor, and requires an almost fanatical level of dedication.Following dominant social myths, it can be quite tempting to understand this as a process of realizing some sort of "individual genius" through personal excellence and hard work.But like all products of human activity, a book grows out of a dense web of sociality and is nourished by a lot of invisible labor.At least that was my experience.While working on this book, I was reminded again and again about the relations of care and collaboration that we develop in spite of the systems that so often dominate our lives.Whatever weaknesses this project has (and I'm certain there are some important ones) are my responsibility.Whatever strengths it has, however, come largely from the contributions of others.The trouble is that it would take another book-length piece of writing to do justice to the many efforts that have nurtured this project.Since I don't have that kind of space, I offer some acknowledgments here that I hope at least indicate the scope of sociality and otherwise invisible labor involved in this book.
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) | 0.017 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".