The antinomy of the text form: dialogical-meaning vs. communicative-meaning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores a historically specific human activity, reading/writing-activity, expended on the production of texts that have become the repositories of objectified meanings. Michel Foucault in a series of books delineates the sphere of discursive practices as an independent phenomenon and places Karl Marx's work, which provides an analysis and explication of the social organization of production, among other strands of discursive practices. While Foucault engages in a descriptive account of discursive practices, which have their own law of formation, Dorothy Smith provides a sociological analysis that employs a Marxist-feminist methodology to explicate their workings. Smith's inquiries into the text-mediated and text-constituted practices of contemporary societies discover text as the ‘cell’ of the social organization of discursive practices. Drawing on Smith's observation that texts are necessarily read and written in actual sites and in time, I further specify how reading/writing-activity becomes the sole source of meaning production in contemporary societies.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".