Increasing the Probable in the Improbable: an Enquiry into the Other Night of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basically, it is the story of a slash which will be told here or rather, less metaphorically, rethought, on an epistemological level: the story, very obviously, of Saussure's algorithm defining the sign and its two-faced nature: S/s. And this is why it seems possible, as well, to characterize the two poles thus defined, by means of reflection upon the constitutive duality of signs. A high risk duality in that it is doubtless not excessive to assert that the relational conflict between these two components, however unthinkable they may be separately, punctuates the history of contemporary poetics — Jacobson's theme and Lacan's variations amongst others — to the benefit, in the majority of cases, of the signifier! The refusal to identify Literature with a questioning of the real' is thus to recall the manner in which literary Modernity has tried to make the signifier autonomous, thus opposing the reduction of the distinction between the
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".