Is the pen mightier than the mouse? Phenomenology of Japanese word processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Unicode was about to achieve a virtual monopoly over the representation of non-alphabetic characters in the 1990s, eclipsing the autonomy of the coding system of Chinese characters originally set by JIS (Japanese Industrial Standard), many individuals and organizations claimed that Unicode could not do justice to the diversity of Japanese transcription.Anticipating the advent of digital libraries and publishing in Japan, concerned authors, publishers, academics, and bureaucrats participated in the resulting debates.The interests represented ranged from nostalgic defenses of the Sino-centric scriptural tradition to progressive calls for eradication of the practice of handwriting to voices of anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism and anti-globalization.While many of the contentions have since been resolved technologically, some questions raised en route by major advocates, about the materiality of texts and the corporeality of the act of writing, remain relevant.Does word processing significantly affect the pace and duration of the physical act of writing?Does it shape or constrict the author's literary style by requiring a specific method of input and dictating, to a great degree, a set of characters to be used and a manner of punctuation?How do computer-processed texts transform the relationships between the author, the editor/publisher, and the reader?Does word processing shrink the existential distance between handwriting a text and reading it in print, thus depriving the author of unique access to the original?Does it fail to deliver the calligraphic diversity of handwritten script and diminish the image of the writer in the reader's eye?Does the author's increased capacity to restore and erase texts affect the role of memory in the creation of a text?Does the author's choice between pen and computer transform the relationship with the editor and the printer to the extent that the end product and its representation may be altered?This paper reconsiders implications of these outstanding phenomenological issues.Dennō baibuntō sengen (Declaration of the Cybernetic Text Venders' Party), published in 1997 and edited by Shimada Masahiko, among others, is a collection of dialogues and round-table talks on the subject of word processing.Shimada, once an advocate of the "Kanji o sukue!Kyanpên" [Save Chinese Characters!Campaign], was concerned with the streamlining of Japanese script by Microsoft-led word processing because it fails to accommodate certain
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".