'On Metis: Or, What the Fox and Octopus taught me about Practice Research'
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
The author aims to re-evaluate aspects of Creative Writing practice that sit ‘awkwardly’ within the context of more analytical discourses in the Humanities. How can making be a form of knowing? He engages with the ideas of Calvino, Canetti, Carson, and Lessing to help identify what the unique ‘qualities’ of writing as a method of thinking and knowing might be, before arguing for the validity of an ancient notion of ‘Metis.’ The central thesis is that what is at stake in ‘multimodality’ is more than just technical adaptability, but the opportunity to conceptualise the kinds of versatility central to creative writing practice as a methodology as a viable research methodology. The article suggests the multimodality of a writing practice might be predicated upon viewing creative practice as a vehicle of thought, a different way of knowing the world, rather than simply being the outcome of thinking done in advance.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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