Knowledge Organization in a Dangerous Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge organization (KO) work is both critical and risky in the context of rising fascism, creating tools that support both discovery and censorship. Contemporary approaches require knowing how our design work contributes to either outcome. In this panel, we will apply our collective expertise in critique and design of knowledge organization to explore ethical approaches to KO work in dangerous times. L'organisation des connaissances à une époque dangereuse RésuméLe travail d'organisation des connaissances (OC) est à la fois critique et risqué dans le contexte de la montée du fascisme, créant des outils qui favorisent à la fois la découverte et la censure. Les approches contemporaines exigent de savoir comment notre travail de conception contribue à l'un ou l'autre des résultats. Dans ce panel, nous appliquerons notre expertise collective en matière de critique et de conception en organisation des connaissances afin d'explorer les approches éthiques du travail d'OC à une époque dangereuse. Mots-clésOrganisation des connaissances; censure; éthique; justice sociale
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 | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".