MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Record as Command

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389925632 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian cultural history and politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialogical selfPower (physics)State (computer science)PhenomenonDialecticComputer scienceSubject (documents)World Wide WebEpistemologyPsychologySocial psychologyProgramming languagePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Records are imbued with and imbue power: all archives therefore hold power. This chapter argues that State records are material instantiations of commands and other illocutionary speech acts that create a dialogical but asymmetrical power dynamic between state and subject. The ‘record-as-command’ is a form of disciplinary writing through which states govern at a distance, coding persons, places, and actions into data points that can be counted and policed. Records therefore represent power, but they also manufacture it. Data-as-command is the increasingly granular, digitized, and automated extension of this phenomenon. The record-as-command and data-as-command work through the apparatus of bureaucracy, which is a supersubject composed of and always entangling new subjects. Through Rancière’s notions of dissensus and impertinent dialectics, this chapter suggests that critical participation in record-making, and information system design, can counteract power asymmetry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it