Writing or reading? An incommensurable choice? [Language in Society]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we reflect upon Wolfgang Klein’s provocative suggestion, in Writing or reading, but not both or: a proposal to reintroduce cuneiform writing using the hammer and chisel , that “every scientist” at universities or other research institutions “may and must publish exactly thirty pages a year.” In our view, Klein’s proposal to limit the number of pages each author should be allotted in a given year is comparable to a pill that treats the symptom but not the disease. Instead, we draw upon the ideas of American political theorist Nancy Fraser to argue for the need for a more radical transformation of the structures upon which the academic enterprise rests. Such a transformation would require (1) overhauling the underlying political-economic structure of academic labour relations, and (2) reconsidering what counts as a legitimate form of knowledge production. In saying so, we are also inspired by current theoretical debates about radical humanism and southern/decolonial perspectives to the sociology of language. Ultimately, we advocate for the need to disinvest from (1) individualism as a key principle of the academic project, at least in the humanities and the social sciences; and (2) the written word as the only medium for the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Such a proposal is underpinned by an emphasis on orality, the usage of other forms of representation, and the need for recognizing alternative ways of producing and disseminating (Indigenous) ways of being, knowing, and feeling.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".