Bibliographic record
Abstract
['I]f something is constructed, then it means it is fragile, and thus in great need of care and caution.' Bruno Latour, ‘Why Has Critique Run out of Steam?’ (2004: 246) 'What if the invention of writing and its stabilization in print were not the single most important turning points in communication history, but only one of many technological turning points? What if scholars—whose lives’ work is dedicated to the written word—have overestimated its world-historical importance?' Jonathan Sterne, ‘The Theology of Sound: A Critique of Orality’ (2011: 221) 'Calling for a theory (or, more pluralistically, theories) of the sonic ought to acknowledge the terminological misfit, at least in etymological terms: sound objects are not contemplated at all, they are apprehended in ways other than the visual – the very framework and rhetorical resonances of ‘theory’ are potentially misleading and inadequate – and that theory itself must also proceed otherwise, with sound.' James A. Steintrager and Rey Chow, Sound Objects (2019: 6) There isn’t a single definitive way of introducing the body of work that we are presenting to you at this point in time. Rather, this first ‘batch’ or ‘issue’ or ‘chapter’ – as we have variously referred to it – represents an illustrative cross-section of themes, topics, ideas and fruits of our labour following a six-month period of careful collating during the spring and summer of 2020. It might be possible, perhaps, to unite our selection here under the umbrella of emergent methodologies in as far as methodology might entail considerations of ways of working, performance-making, creative innovation, research protocols, as well as methodologies of survival during the pandemic. Covid–19 has turned this project into an improvisation and imposed upon it fluidity, surprise and the dispersed logic of a dream. As researchers we have often been led to simply trust the flow and hope that it will all make sense in the end. One way in which the methodological approach of this project crystallises itself is the emphasis on oral/aural research methodologies, which in this case entails new slants on the conventional forms of interview and dialogue, as well as the new methods pioneered by this project – oral introductions to academic books, and tours of the artists’ desktops and file archives. As we harvest our insights and findings, we are getting closer to the sense of clarity, and with our initial selection of materials we hope to provide here for you a map of some co-ordinates, parameters and interstices of our multi-faceted field of research. This is the first of five offerings we will share with you between now and late February 2021. The next four will follow on a weekly basis in the new year. Please feel free to dip in, dive in or sample, and do let us know what you think, or pass on to friends and interested others. Duška Radosavljević and Flora Pitrolo October 2020 Works Cited Latour, Bruno (2004) ‘Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’, Critical Inquiry, 30:2, pp. 225-48. Sterne, Jonathan (2011) ‘The Theology of Sound: A Critique of Orality’, Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 36, pp. 207-225. Steintrager, James A. & Chow, Rey (2019) Sound Objects, London and Durham: Duke University Press.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.660 | 0.474 |
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".