JDP Network 1999/2009/2019: A Living History of John Durham Peters’ Historiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an archaeology of John Durham Peters’ historiographic methods and strategies by comparing three distinct approaches that the author names JDP1999, JDP2009, and JDP2019. For each of these three JDPs, one key theoretical figure functions as a historiographical guide. Walter Benjamin leads the way for JDP1999. Friedrich Kittler guides JDP 2009. Harold Innis hovers, Google Earth-like, above JDP 2019. The dominant forms of historical evidence are also fundamentally different. JDP 1999 delves into the hidden philosophies and theologies of communication buried in canonical Western texts. JDP 2009 opens up the diagrams, patents, and formulas of scientists and engineers used in the creation of media. JDP 2019 examines the ‘natural world’ as the inscription of being that encodes and decodes itself into existence. A further distinction to be made between JDP 2009 and JDP 2019 regards tools and knowledge of the natural world, both of which figure prominently in the histories discussed. The natural world preexists tools and humans. Its history is deeply inhuman, whereas the history of ideas and of tools is clearly not.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".