On digital theorizing, clickbait research, and the cumulative tradition
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 pursuit of novel and indigenous digital theories is a thought-provoking call by Grover and Lyytinen. Such a piece is direly needed, and we hope it will spark a reinvigoration of the field. However, despite its many merits and our alignment with its message, we have two comments or caveats for readers of their piece. These are—a) a need to re-emphasize the value of attending to the cumulative tradition in our pursuit of digital theorizing, and relatedly b) an unreflective reading of the paper may risk mobilizing IS scholarship towards clickbait research. We further highlight three anchors that future scholarship can consider in attending to these issues a) problematization anchor, b) implications anchor, and c) boundary-spanning anchor. With these points, we add more volume to amplify the message of G&L and offer suggestions for pursuing innovative digital theories that go beyond ephemeral theorizing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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