Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges says that “every writer creates his precursors. His work changes our conception of the past, as it will change the future.” In his writings, Benjamin Lee Whorf cites a wide and eclectic set of inspirations—which is to say that he creates, retrospectively, a set of intellectual lineages leading up to him. Although some of these are scientifically respectable—quantum mechanics, relativity, colloidal chemistry, non-Euclidean geometry—others, such as psychoanalysis and “unbiased cultural anthropology,” are less evident for a chemical engineer, and some, such as his fondness for Theosophy and for the work of the occultist Fabre d’Olivet, have been used to discredit him. If we suspend judgment, can we fairly characterize the full field of Whorf’s retrojected precursors? And can this field as a whole help understand his modification of his future and our present, in Whorf’s current reappearance in some unexpected places in literature (e.g., in speculative fiction and fantasy)?
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".