Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the music industry’s transition from CDs to MP3s to document how members of the established industry and new entrants used metaphors to reinforce pre-existing cultural values and the business models they comprise. I outline a process through which their evaluations and legitimation efforts are constrained: actors engage in metaphorical contestation, where they use the same metaphor topics to reinforce opposing interpretations of the MP3. Whereas established players such as record label executives used metaphors to liken the new technology to past experiences requiring a commitment to ‘music as art’ and as a product to be owned, new entrants used the same metaphor topics to suggest a more radical understanding of the MP3 as something to be accessed, and an appreciation for quantity over quality. The process of metaphorical contestation underscores how arguments rooted in an art vs. commerce binary are leveraged on the basis of one’s position within a field of large-scale cultural production. This article extends sociological accounts of valuation within cultural fields through its attention to the evaluation of sociotechnical phenomena using ‘art’ discourse.
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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".