Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduced into Romantic studies by Don H. Bialostosky, the term ‘dialogic’ has its source in the writings of the Russian theorist, Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin (1895–1975). ‘Dialogic’ literally means ‘characterized by dialogue’, and Bakhtin places the concept of dialogue at the centre of his work on language and textuality. For Bakhtin, the act of communication between two people at a specific moment in a particular place is a model of the way all language depends for meaning on its social context. He argues that words are traditionally treated as their own direct expressions, encountering in their attempt to make meaning only the object they seek to represent. But this seemingly direct relationship between a word and its object is mediated by other words which impinge on the attempt at representation. In ‘Discourse in the novel’, Bakhtin asserts that every word finds the object at which it is directed already ‘overlain with qualifications’ by ‘alien words that have already been spoken about it’ (p. 276). A word is shaped by dialogic interaction with the alien words that are already in its object, just as speakers shape their words in dialogue as rejoinders to what has been said and what they anticipate will be said. Although the communicative aspect of language is ‘regularly taken into account when it comes to everyday dialogue’, Bakhtin insists that ‘every other sort of discourse’ as well is ‘oriented toward an understanding that is responsive’ (p. 280). Thus, the responsiveness of dialogue stands as an image of the doubleness of all language in Bakhtin, where the word is directed not only toward its object, but also toward what other people have said and are saying about this object.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
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".