Bibliographic record
Abstract
As I sift through my mess of field notes, interview transcripts, online databases, and conspiracy theory websites, trying my best to untangle a complex millennial cosmology, I come to realize that my confusion fits my subject matter.The millennial conspiracists who construct elaborate hierarchical conspiracies have developed an equally confusing-to me-understanding of life, the universe, and everything. 1 The millennial cosmology figures the presence of good and evil extraterrestrials, ascended masters, chakras, universal laws, interplanetary telepathic communication, and multiple dimensions and universes run on metaphysical algorithms.The conspiracies figure the presence of good and evil extraterrestrials, an evil cabal, demonic pizza restaurants, Jewish bankers, strong artificial intelligence, microchips inside vaccines, child sacrifice, and algorithmic bias.1 As a movement with diffuse beliefs, cosmologies, and practices, it is difficult to gauge how many people identify with the millennial conspiracist worldview.One of my research communities lists 337 separate meet-up groups around the world.Their now defunct online social platform had 18,000 members by late 2020.These communities are connected by claims of the human capacity to evolve into spiritualized bodies, a belief in advanced extraterrestrial life, reliance on alternative health practices, and a general distrust of authority and mainstream sources of information.
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".