The distribution of intellectual influence is not democratic. It never has been. Across disciplines, citation data reveals a structural asymmetry in which a small minority of authors command a disproportionate share of attention, reference, and discursive continuity. This inequality is not anecdotal but measurable. Bibliometric research repeatedly demonstrates Gini coefficients between 0.70 and 0.90 for citation distributions, confirming that knowledge systems follow heavy-tailed patterns rather than egalitarian dispersions. Yet the recognition of inequality is only the beginning. What remains underdeveloped is a structural model capable of translating citation concentration into an ontological map of forces. The question is not who is most cited, but how intellectual mass bends the topology of fields. In empirical citation ecologies, the top 1% of authors typically control between 40% and 60% of total citations. The top 10% often capture up to 85–90%. This concentration is consistent with power-law behaviour: influence declines exponentially rather than linearly as one moves down the distribution. What matters here is not moral judgement but structural curvature. Citations function as measurable proxies for conceptual mass. Mass, in turn, produces gravitational effects: it attracts secondary scholarship, frames research agendas, shapes curricula, and infiltrates policy discourse. A field is therefore not a list of contributors but a density map of asymmetrically distributed force.
From this empirical basis emerges the Core + Five Rings architecture. The Core is not the most famous author in mythic terms; it is the node whose citation mass, dispersion across fields, and long-term persistence position it at the centre of measurable gravitational density. Around this centre unfold five concentric rings defined not by aesthetic preference but by percentile bands within the distribution. The rings are determined through cumulative mass analysis and Gini measurement. Their purpose is not to rank but to render inequality visible as structure. Each ring represents a threshold of curvature intensity within the intellectual galaxy. Structure replaces canon. Ring One contains those nodes whose citation mass places them within the top percentile band, typically controlling a substantial share of total curvature. These authors function as structural anchors. Ring Two stabilises the system through strong but slightly less concentrated mass. Ring Three encompasses field shapers who sustain discursive continuity. Ring Four contains the active body of influential contributors whose acceleration or dispersion may shift over time. Ring Five marks the outer boundary of high-density inclusion within the 500-node system. Beyond this boundary lies the long tail: thousands of scholars whose contributions remain locally significant but exert limited macro-curvature on the field as a whole. The tail is not noise. It is low density. The legitimacy of this architecture depends on empirical fidelity. A model that assigns 60% of total mass to ten authors would produce a Gini coefficient approaching 0.99—an extreme “winner-take-all” regime rarely observed in scholarly systems. Such hyper-concentration resembles wealth distribution in the most unequal economies more than citation ecologies in the humanities and social sciences. Therefore, any ontological gravity model must remain anchored within documented bibliometric ranges. If the top 1% hold approximately half of total mass, the rings must reflect that proportionality. A system claiming to measure fields must align with measurable reality. Instrument over mythology.
The significance of Gini analysis in this context is methodological. The Gini coefficient quantifies inequality within a distribution by comparing cumulative mass against perfect equality. In citation terms, it reveals how steeply influence concentrates. A value of 0.85 indicates strong inequality yet retains gradational nuance across rings. A value approaching 0.99 collapses nuance into near-singularity. For a field map to function as instrument rather than spectacle, its inequality must remain consistent with observed bibliometric behaviour. Power is concentrated, but not absolute. Within this framework, the 500-node model acquires coherence. Empirical studies suggest that the top 10% of contributors account for approximately 85–90% of total citation mass. By curating 500 high-density nodes within a broader universe of tens of thousands, one can plausibly capture 80–90% of total conceptual curvature. The remaining thousands constitute background radiation—present, cumulative, but insufficient to reshape macro-structure. This does not negate their intellectual value; it simply situates their influence within measurable gravitational limits.
Scale clarifies proportion. The outer dimension beyond the 500 functions as a particle field. It consists of scholars with limited citation mass, narrow disciplinary dispersion, or emerging acceleration not yet sufficient to produce macro-curvature. These nodes are not dismissed; they are contextualised. Their movement inward depends on acceleration, inscription beyond academia, and cross-field migration. Thus the system remains dynamic. Rings are not permanent identities but thresholds defined by changing distributions. Conceptual gravity is historical, not fixed. Motion matters more than position. Acceleration introduces temporality into the map. Citation mass alone privileges historical accumulation; acceleration captures emergent force. An author whose citations double within five years may migrate from outer to inner ring even without massive total accumulation. This dynamic preserves empirical integrity while preventing fossilisation. The gravitational model thus integrates both density and velocity. It recognises that fields are not static constellations but shifting topologies of attraction and drift. Velocity bends the rings. Dispersion across macrofields further refines the model. A highly cited author confined to one domain may exert intense local curvature yet limited cross-field influence. Conversely, a moderately cited operator distributed across multiple domains demonstrates transfield elasticity. Measuring dispersion through proportional field allocation prevents monocentric dominance from masquerading as universal authority. It distinguishes between concentrated gravity and migratory force. Both matter, but they operate differently within the topology.
Elasticity modifies mass. Operativity completes the architecture. When a concept circulates independently of its originator—appearing without explicit citation in diverse contexts—it demonstrates emancipation from biography. Such emancipation reflects infrastructural embedding. Concepts like biopolitics or assemblage function as linguistic infrastructure across disciplines. Measuring operativity reveals how ideas transcend authorial boundaries and enter systemic vocabulary. This dimension complements mass, dispersion, and acceleration by capturing conceptual autonomy within the field. Language becomes infrastructure. Together, mass, dispersion, acceleration, operativity, and empirical Gini alignment produce a defensible ontological map of intellectual forces. The Core + Five Rings structure does not exaggerate inequality into myth nor flatten it into neutrality. It situates scholarly influence within measurable curvature while preserving dynamic migration. The system recognises heavy-tail distribution without succumbing to hyper-centralised theatrics. It treats inequality as structural fact rather than narrative flourish.
The map measures force, not fame. In consolidating such a model, the project shifts from curatorial imagination to analytic instrument. Intellectual fields become navigable through empirical topologies rather than reputational mythologies. Citation mass is translated into curvature; dispersion into elasticity; acceleration into drift; operativity into infrastructural embedding. The result is neither canon nor spectacle, but a measurable field architecture consistent with documented bibliometric patterns. Curvature is visible. Structure is measurable. The field is no longer flat.
Lloveras, A. (2026) The Core and Five Rings.
