Bibliographic record
Abstract
In her review of Sasha Cagen’s Quirkyalone: A Manifestofor Uncompromising Romantics for the Toronto Star, poet, novelist and cultural journalist Lynn Crosbie concludes that reading Cagen’s textbook for ind ependent and “cheerful oddballs” is “a slightly creep y experience, comparable to pouring over the folkwa ys of Klingons” (D12). This apparently peculiar connection seems to represent a broader consensu s regarding the activities of not only those who identify as Klingons, but those who move in the same world as them. For example, Crosbie’s glib depiction shares many similarities with the approach director Roger Nygard takes in his 1997 documentary Trekkies, in which a procession of quirky and cheerful “oddballs” enthusiastically expound on their devotion to Star Trek. Where Crosbie obviously intends to be derogatory, however, Nygard aims to foreground the notion that Trekkies are comfortable with, and even proud of, their oddball status.1 despite a lack of understanding, or even contempt, from “mundanes.”2
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".