Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture is a circle of tradition.We are constantly conserving, discarding, renewing, and reviving traditional practices and customs within a cultural frame.When we speak of folklore, we are considering this push-and-pull between what has been preserved, what has been forgotten, and what is in the process of being reinvented.With reinvention, we, in the present moment, discover new value, new meanings, of traditional customs, and we creatively reinterpret them to suit our current needs and realities.Reinvention is where the magic of folklore happens: it's the place where tradition lives.For our first issue after a six-year hiatus, Re[Invented] felt like the suitable theme for a journal called Culture & Tradition.Founded in 1976, the journal has seen a lot of change.The world now, in 2024, is quite different from the social, cultural, and political landscape of the mid-1970s, yet we are still dealing with issues of identity, belonging, conservancy, and becoming.We still seek to understand our place in the world, who we are and where we fit.We express both delight and discomfort at our technological advancements and the way they are used to shape our world.We use social media to both connect and argue across physical boundaries, creating bonds but also rupturing communities across political divides.While the world around us changes, folklore remains the tool of expression of these cultural anxieties, concerns, fears, and joys.As such, we celebrate change and the ability to reinvent ourselves, our world, and our traditions.The articles in this issue all attempt to grapple with some of these concerns and joys of twenty first-century life as expressed through folklore.True to our theme, we also seek to reinvent understandings of knowledge, inviting for the first time in the journal's history creative art pieces, including visual and poetic.By including these art forms alongside our more "academic" articles, we hope to celebrate and highlight the value of creativity within folkloristics, and how we, as
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.784 | 0.762 |
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".