Bibliographic record
Abstract
I owe its existence to the guides, friends, and colleagues in each of these institutions who shaped my work and supported me, particularly during the difficult times.I am grateful to Paul Stevens for his compassion, grace, and generosity during the most important years of my intellectual development.I am grateful to Mary Nyquist and David Galbraith, who helped me overcome the timidity of a student and embrace the creative sacrifices involved in writing a book.I am grateful to Noam Reisner, who taught me the true meaning of the golden rule and guided my transition to a new culture, a new professional stage, and a new phase of personal maturity.I am grateful to Sarah Mortimer for the many conversations and ideas that are woven into the fabric of this book, and for her tireless efforts to include me in her community at Oxford even in the darkest days of the pandemic.I am indebted to Tom Dilworth and Stephen Pender, who guided my first steps in literary criticism, and to my first teacher, Daniel Bonk, whose memory lives with me still
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.314 | 0.196 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".