Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses and contextualises the concepts that underpin Rancière’s thought on literature, scrutinising his interpretations of particular works This collection of 13 original essays engages with Rancière’s accounts of literature from across his work, putting his conceptual apparatus to work in acts of literary criticism. From his archival investigations of the literary efforts of 19th-century workers to his engagements with specific novelists and poets, and from his concept of 'literarity' to his central positioning of the novel in his account of the three 'regimes' of literary practice, this collection unearths, consolidates, evaluates and critiques Rancière's work on and with literature. Contributors Arne De Boever , California Institute of the Arts, USA Justin Clemens , University of Melbourne, Australia Oliver Feltham , American University of Paris , France Elaine Freedgood , New York University, USA Andrew Gibson , formerly Royal Holloway, University of London, UK and Northwestern University, USA Grace Hellyer , University of New South Wales, Australia Eric Méchoulan , University of Montréal, Canada Julian Murphet , University of New South Wales, Australia Bert Olivier , University of the Free State and University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa Jacques Rancière , University of Paris VIII (Emeritus), France Alison Ross , Monash University, Australia Emily Steinlight , University of Pennsylvania, USA
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it