Introduction: Infrastructure as an Inter-Asian Method
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea for this special issue grew out of a workshop the co-editors organized at the Conference on “InterAsian Connections VI: Hanoi” in December 2018. This special issue conjoins critical infrastructure studies with inter-Asian perspectives in an effort to transcend a techno-nationalist framework of infrastructure as solely an instrument of state power and superpower competition. We are particularly interested in exploring the “deep time” that critical infrastructure studies bring to the examinations of local and transregional connections in Asia and beyond. We argue that the “deep time” of infrastructure is evident in the ways in which previous and existing social relations are mobilized, appropriated, transformed, obscured or occluded with newer layers of infrastructural development. Furthermore, the essays collected here demonstrate self-reflection on the pertinence of the study of infrastructure to the production of knowledge about regions and regionalization in general, foregrounding such questions as “What is gained by adopting an infrastructural approach on ‘Asia’ as a social and cultural imaginary?” and “What does it mean to call something infrastructural?”
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.000 |
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 it