MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Complex Web of Relations that Extends Beyond the Human

2012· article· en· W1506619875 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deanna Reder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chinese Philosophy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyChinese philosophyEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophyChinaHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the question “Is There, Can There Be, such an Activity as World Humanities?” My response takes issue with the phrase “world humanity” that serves to legitimize a homogenizing process of globalization while simultaneously hiding from view the injustices and power imbalances that globalization creates. From my perspective as a Cree-Métis scholar, the world humanities are only valuable if they participate in the recuperation and protection of Indigenous stories—and by extension Indigenous languages and epistemes—that would require a reconsideration of the definition and obligations of what it means to be human.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.036
Scholarly communication0.0150.035
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chinese PhilosophySame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207