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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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; 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".