Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two ways of approaching the topic of Speculative Medievalisms. On the one hand, one might consider the role of the medieval or medievalism within speculation or the speculative. Allan Mitchell offers a version of this approach in his piece in this volume, “Cosmic Eggs, or Events Before Eve-rything,” when he reflects on how the medieval is already to be found in the speculative, whether consciously or uncon-sciously. Another way of approaching the topic would be to consider how the theses, ideas or propositions found in specu-lative realism translate to a medieval—or in Yates’s case, an early modern—literary critical practice. This second approach serves as the focus of Yates’s essay, and so it will be the subject of my response. In this response I will re-compose Yates’sessay, schematically restructuring it so as to draw out the im-plications for speculative medieval critical practice.Harman’s technique in his book Prince of Networks is a complicated one, but one whose mechanisms are worth study-ing.1 Harman takes as his starting point Bruno Latour’s critical practice for, and as, sociology, science studies, and actor network theory (among others). From Latour’s practice, Harman then extrapolates its underlying, more or less explicit metaphysics. In Part II of the Prince of Networks, Harman tweaks this metaphysics slightly to present a new or slightly modified version of Latourian metaphysics, and this tweaked Latourian metaphysics becomes Object Oriented Ontology. The end of the book leaves readers with one critical practice (Latourian practice, as embodied in his work) and two meta-physics (the Latourian metaphysics Harman describes and the metaphysics he himself elaborates). The third section of Har-man’s book—the section of the book where he works back from Part II’s metaphysics to a critical practice—has not been written yet. If Latourian critical practice can produce or imply a metaphysics, then what are the contours of the critical prac-tice that might correspond to the metaphysics of Part II? What is a Harmanian or speculative realist critical practice?
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".