Introduction to the Tenth Anniversary section of Catalyst
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In preparing the tenth anniversary section of Catalyst, the current editorial team met to reflect on the legacy, politico-ethical vision and future of the journal. Using the introduction to the inaugural issue as a prompt for our reflections, we discussed what makes the journal distinctive, how it has contributed to the field of technoscience, the intellectual inheritance of feminist scholarship on which our work builds and the generative associations materialised through the metaphor of a catalyst. Our discussion was also guided by the following questions: What kind of topics do you observe are the most current within the field of feminist technosciences? Since you started working at Catalyst, has your perception of feminist technoscience as a field changed? If so, how? How does the current geo-political climate affect your thoughts on feminist technoscience and vice versa? As wide-ranging and capacious as feminist technoscience, the discussion also included lively reflections on the catalytic qualities of bacteria and the ways in which they participate in life-giving processes of kin-making. In the spirit of capturing both the unique voices of the editorial team and the relational assemblage of the conversation as it unfolded, we present it below in conversation-style format. This opening discussion offers a rich companion piece to the reflections of former editorial teams presented in the anniversary section, surfacing the ways in which Catalyst continues to be a playground for alterity and a safe harbor in this historic moment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.022 |
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".