Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review of Amelia Walker’s Alogopoiesis is an interdisciplinary response, reflecting Walker’s own creative approach of employing both form and content. Creative nonfiction, critical thinking, and a mixed media artwork response to Alogopoiesis reflect the effects that reading it has had on me as a creative, as a researcher, and as a living being. It is a happy coincidence that I chose to open the book in a café on Mount Myoko in Japan, and, as I climbed through the pages, I discovered a multitude of connections to my many worlds. I began walking beside each protagonist, nodding, feeling, staying. The word alogopoiesis, made up from alogia and poiesis, is an apt portmanteau for this body of work. Alogopoiesis renders an unsilencing. A slow-rebuild, remaking, and sensing of gaps where the unspoken reside. This book sharpened my outlook. My in-look. Replacing my rose-coloured glasses with recognition as I sank into stories of mental distress, violence, abuse, heartbreak, and prejudice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".