Bibliographic record
Abstract
n Daemonomania, the second installment of his magisterial and yet largely unrecognized Aegypt tetralogy, John Crowley writes: "when the world ends, it ends somewhat differently for each soul then alive to see it; the end doesn't come all at once but passes and repasses over the world like the shivers that pass over a horse's skin" (17).Elsewhere, Jacques Derrida saw apocalypses happening around us all the time and yet masking themselves from our view and ongoing-endings without ends.There is something truthful about these perspectives, different as they may be, and their intimate optic rings very true for many people as they struggle with cathartic events: personal tragedies, decline of communities, environmental degradation, loss of values and spiritualities, and economic precarity.Many of these world-endings seem to be connected-somewhat paradoxically, perhaps-to the knowledge and perception of the increasing complexity of the world.Over a quarter of a century ago, writing about the connections between spirituality and digital technologies, Eric Davis poetically described this condition as follows: "as global flows of information, products, peoples, and simulacra gush into our immediate lifeworlds, they chip away at our sense of standing on solid ground, of being rooted in a particular time and place" (278).The fact that such personal apocalypses do not necessarily result in absolute physical annihilation and often spell out the arrival of something else is, needless to say, more than appropriate given the original meaning of the word 'apocalypse.'
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".