Bibliographic record
Abstract
After four vivid pages spent describing “the myth of the ferris wheel” Graham Harman sets into what some have called the most accessible introduction to Object Oriented Ontology to date. At around 25,000 words in length Circus Philosophicus reads nicely in one extended sitting, and very readily yields rewards to both the specialist and non-specialist reader. Situated within Harman’s expand-ing oeuvre Circus Philosophicus is not readily comparable with any of his other work work, with the possible exception of the forthcoming Treatise on Objects (Open Humanities Press), which Harman describes as having a similar sort of prose. 1The incomparable genre of Circus Philosophicus seems to have been the goal from the beginning, a fact made evident by the rear cover blurb which describes the goal to “restore myth to its central place in the discipline.” The following review will give a brief summary of the first half of Circus Philosophicus highlighting some pertinent details, while of-fering some closing comments on the interesting placement of the work within both the genre and the discourse of Object Oriented Ontology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.143 | 0.091 |
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".