Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his essay "A History of 'Ludicrous,'" Matthew Kaiser writes:The history of the word "ludicrous" can be divided into three overlapping yet largely distinct periods.The first begins in , when "ludicrous," a synonym at that time of "playful" or "sportive," appears for the first time in print.It ends in the mid-eighteenth century with the emergence of an intractable upstart: the current, derogatory meaning of "ludicrous," its only meaning over two hundred and fifty years later.. . .The second epoch in the history of "ludicrous"the one hundred years or so between the mideighteenth and the mid-nineteenth centuriesis marked by an awkward, often unstable, cohabitation of the older playful sense of the word with its more recent pejorative one.To complicate matters, hybrid usage proliferates throughout this period.Having grown, by the early nineteenth century, into a complex, contradictory, slippery creature, "ludicrous" even accrues, among some intellectual circles, a quasi-philosophical luster.All the while its popularity as a pedestrian term of abuse increasesto the chagrin of its more etymologically sensitive usersat an unstoppable rate. There is a whole biography in this paragraph: the progress of "ludicrous" from a childhood stage of sport and play, to an awkward, unstable, confusing adolescence, to a grim adulthood in which joy, spontaneity, and subjective complexity is snuffed out so that the word may serve its Victorian function as "a pedestrian term of abuse."This narrative is, for Kaiser, a tale of survival, but not a happy one: Today, the lone survivor from the "ludi" clan, having grown increasingly bitter, "ludicrous" has lost the spirit of play that it was devised initially to express.In the mid-seventeenth century, however, literate English speakers could employ in conversation or in composition myriad "ludicrous" siblings: "ludible" and "ludibrious," "ludicral" and "ludification," "ludibry" and "ludibund," "ludificable" and "ludificate," "ludificatory" and "ludify."
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.015 |
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".