Throwing Away The Ladder. Wittgenstein'S Philosophy And And Scholarly Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engagement, interaction, and communication is a the very core of late Wittgenstein's philosophy. In this talk, I explore two core concepts in his work, (1) the therapeutic use of philosophy and (2) language games, in the context of citation theory and scholarly communication. Original Abstract: We might want to engage with fellow researchers and students, but learning special vocabulary and language of another field can be a daunting task. In times of ever accelerating technological progress, scholarly communication is facing the challenge of reconciling increasingly specialized research programs and practices with the demand for interdisciplinary communication. In this talk, I want to address the gap between theory and practice in a playful way by proposing a framework based on Wittgenstein's philosophy, contemporary cognitive science, and schol-comm technology. The main question that I want to explore is: "How can the theory help to design and build technology for scholarly communications which overcomes the challenges of transdisciplinary communication?" I will briefly introduce these concepts, provide some background for the philosophical ideas, and finally show how these relate to an actual piece of working scholarly communications software, viz., Open Knowledge Maps. This framework provides tools to conceptualize scholarly communication and technology in a way that includes the individual cognitive and broader social dimension of communication. COI: I am part of the non-profit OKM (openknowledgemaps.org). The draft of this paper is available on Authorea (https://www.authorea.com/210697/Y1Etz_Zx39cR7MUjcSgoUg)
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".