Creative Commons Attribution License
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty years ago, the French philosopher and literary theorist Jean-François Lyotard published a pre-scient report on knowledge called The Postmodern Condition. Originally commissioned by the Conseil des Universitiés of the government of Quebec, the report was an investigation of the status of knowledge in computerized societies (3). His working hypothesis was that the nature of knowledgehow we know, what we know, how knowledge is communicated, what knowledge is communicated, and, finally, who we as knowers arehad changed in light of the new technological, social, and economic transformations that have ushered in the post-industrial age, what he calls, in short, postmodernism. Much more than just a pe-riodizing term, postmodernism, for Lyotard, bespeaks a new cultural-economic reality as well as a condition in which grand narratives or meta-narratives no longer hold sway: the progress of science, the liberation of humanity, the spread of Enlightenment and rationality, and so forth are meta-narratives that have lost their cogency. This itself is not an original observation: after all, Nietzsche, Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, Foucault, and others have variously shown where the fully enlightened world ends up. What sets Lyotard apart is his focus on how knowledge has been transformed into many small (and even competing and contradictory) narratives and how scientific knowledge in particular has become transformed into bits of information with the rise of cybernetics, informatics, information storage and databanks, and telematics,
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.628 | 0.567 |
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".