Collaborative projection and the twin ecstasies of DIY cineworlding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion that ethnographic practice needs to be normative in order to be rigorous is problematic, especially when the partners in that research are producing experimental and resistant DIY cultures. Nonnormative ethnographers are “activist” in their critical engagement with dominant regimes of truth and must contend with digital disruption and platform capitalism that has vastly expanded DIY production. It is no longer possible to identify DIY culture with self-production because digital self-production is simply demanded for the “digital citizenship” of platform capitalism. In this article, the psychoanalytic concept of projection is turned upside down and understood as a socially performed digital-bodying that worlds. The screen becomes a location of dissensus, projecting the ecstatic truth of Modern/capitalist worldings or Altermodern/anti-capitalist worldings. Cinematic research-creation, CineWorlding, is an activist cinematic posthumanographic study of the interstices that infold concepts, bodies, social, technological, and environmental ecologies into worldings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".