MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1040992541 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-185-6_1

The Ethics of Betrayal

2013· book-chapter· en· W1040992541 on OpenAlexaff
jan jagodzinski, Jason Wallin

Bibliographic record

VenueSensePublishers eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBetrayalPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What does it mean to betray Arts-Based Research by offering a critique of its fundamental tenants? Why betray it in the first place? There are a number of ways betrayal might be thought more favorably than the one that most readily comes to mind: to be disloyal to friends by acting in the interests of enemies. And, of course, in the Christian world, Judas immediately comes to the lips. What form does his particular betrayal take? In the short story by Jorge Luis Borges, “The Three Version of Judas,” the most extreme version is where Judas premeditates his sins and violates trust.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.081
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensePublishers eBooksSame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207