Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most visible impacts of new communicative technologies are in the attention-grabbing and expressive potential of greater design control at the desktop, hypertext, and multimedia (graphics, animation, video, sound, hap-tics, and ultimately immersive virtual and augmented reality). Nonetheless, the most significant impacts of new communicative technologies are likely to be in the changing activities and communities facilitated by new potentials of transmission, storage, and accessibility that change time, space, memory, informational resources, and economy of social encounter. Beyond providing students with facility in design tools and multi-media rhetoric, teachers of rhetoric need to provide students with analytic tools to understand the chang-ing locations and informational richness of encounters they will be creating, the larger knowledge, social, and activity environments that surround the particular encounter and activity spaces they are working in, and the ways in which communications will mediate transformed work, citizenship, and per-sonal relations. Increasingly, to lead a full and productive life requires learning to navigate, maintain, and constantly reconstruct the built symbolic environ-ment we share with others and which forms the basis of social cooperation in a knowledge society. And a core part of that learning is to understand how that communication, information, and cooperation can support humanly sat-isfying modes of social life. Animals were social before they were communicative. Even coral requires a colony. Animals were social and communicative before they were symbolic; witness ants being led by each other’s pheromones. Animals were social and communicative before they had language; bees dance to direct each other to pollen. Each of these developments in sociality extended the possibilities and range of interaction, cooperation, sharing, and intersubjectivity. Consider the complex and affectionate parent-child relations among advanced mammals,
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.193 | 0.002 |
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".