Memetic memory as vital conduits of troublemakers in digital culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent fears of data capitalism and colonialism often argue using implicit assumptions about cybernetic technology’s ability to automate data about culture. As such, the level of data granularity made possible by cybernetic engineering can be used to dominate society and culture. Here we unpack these implicit assumptions about the datafication of culture through memes, which both act as cultural data and cultural memory. Using Alexander Galloway’s critical method of protocological analysis and descriptions of media tactics, we respond to fears of cybernetic domination. Protocols – the source by which cybernetic technologies enable automated datafication – enables us to respond to fears with optimism, and it further enables a more extensive development of how memetic memory functions. Our development shows that memetic memory often emerges before cybernetic datafication, offering moments of resistance from cybernetic domination. Further, this development enables a vitalist development of memetic memory, borrowing from Bergsonian theory and related contemporary media theories. Such a work contributes by providing cybernetic context in which culture, characterized through memes, resists cybernetic domination. In the process of this contribution, it also contributes a novel theory of memetic memory. Inspired by recent posthuman new media theory, we provide a novel reading of Richard Dawkins’ genetically inspired meme as well as Limor Shifman’s notion of memetic ‘stance’. Taken together, we contribute the beginnings of a memetic theory of vitalism which speaks more readily with critical cybernetic discourse.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".