K proměnám technologie psaní v první polovině 20. století
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 formation of a literary work is influenced not only by components based on intellectual operations, but by the technology of writing itself. The technologies of writing literary texts enter into the literary process most significantly in moments when new technologies emerge; that is, in periods when they come into direct competition, or during confrontation of old and new technological methods of literary creation. These two basic technological methods came into meaningful contact during the last quarter of the 19th century and continued during the following century. When analyzing the creative writing process, which includes various methods of manual and machine processing of text, we accentuate the remedial principle designed by Jay David Bolter in the book Writing Space, where he defined remediation as a process of cultural competition between technologies. The process of remediation of writing technologies lasted quite a long time. Although typewriters were used in administration by the late 19th century, competition between typewriting and manual writing to a certain extent (in the case of certain authors) continues to this day. The typewriter started to become the dominant technological tool in the process of writing in the course of the 1920s and 30.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it