Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am questioning how one may be and become, create and experience themselves as alive through the multifold practice of writing. How is writing a practice of ontologically marking livingness? To explore the ontological “things” writing can be, I examine a few properties that define it, including writing … to become existent; to make many lives; itself as alive; to become with the land; as identification; as a vessel to dislodge tropes; to retrieve the past through our future; as transformation; to know; as a political act; to grieve and heal; to become an archive. Rather than taking flight from writing as an expression of living, I am hoping writing can be understood as the node from which life is made and experienced, not just how it can be expressed. One writes to make lives, not just to show or illustrate those lives, but force those lives as real, existent, fictions, possible, impossible, unruly at the end, alive—in whatever formation that alive may mean.
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 | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".