Preserving Fugacious Stories Through Metho-pedagogical Gatherings to Carry Forth Otherworlds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The archive of scholarly communications holds stories-knowledge-worlds that we know, well-worn scripts, repeated and repurposed that come to contour our scholarship and our lives, and then there are stories that we need to know, vital lifegiving stories of otherworlding possibilities, stories of and from what Ursula K. Le Guin (2019) calls the Carrier Bag. It is these stories that take the shape of the carrier bag—filled with relational entanglements, in-process-ness, mess, tension, the daily repetition of gathering seeds—that tend to remain untold, ignored, glossed over, and actively disrecognized in the archive of scholarly communication that we are especially interested in. Through gathering as method, we share our relations and curiosities about how communication and (un)conventional publishing processes might yet create supportive mechanisms and mediums to amplify and preserve the relational-fragmented-ephemeral wisps and whispers imbued in the entangled processes of scholarly communication. Specifically, we consider how the Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction (Le Guin 2019) invites more capacious understandings of how those who steward such re-worlding offerings of knowledge care with and for them. Sharing from our respective and collective carrier bag(s), we offer our stories of intimacy, vulnerability, and critical reflection and animate how our relations over the years have allowed us to bring forth fertile worldmaking potentialities into our teaching and scholarship in different but linked ways. We offer our everyday practices of gathering as practical reverence for the restoration of ourselves and our relations and the restory-ation of the scholarly archive. We hope these fugacious stories, some of which show up on the page, others that hover in the spaces between letters, words, lines, and images, materialize a container that can care-fully gather and hold these vitalities through spacetime—holding enough space for you to enter with all that you carry, enough time for you to dwell.
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 | 0.023 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".