MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525757162 · doi:10.24908/ijesjp.v3i1.5525

Highland Lake Workshop Conversations about Critical Action

2014· article· en· W1525757162 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Donna Riley, Nasser Saleh, Darko Matovic, Caroline Baillie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Engineering Social Justice and Peace · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationAction (physics)Theme (computing)SociologySpace (punctuation)Social justiceMedia studiesEconomic JusticeLibrary sciencePolitical scienceSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On December 6, 2014, Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace (ESJP) co-hosted a one-day workshop with Critical Stage and the University of Western Australia titled “Conversations about Critical Action.” The workshop was hosted at the North American Cultural Lab in Highland Lake, New York. An interdisciplinary group of 14 participants from Australia, England, Canada, and the United States met, representing academics, artists, actors, directors, film-makers, activists, teachers and engineers whose common interest is in making a difference both individually and as a community.The conversation focused on critical reflections of past, present and future actions with the goal of enhancing social justice in discussing the workshop’s main theme: How might I be the person I would most like to be and contribute to making the world more socially just?Using an Open Space Technology format and Talking Circle processes with an interactive approach, the workshop participants developed self-organized sessions.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0020.020
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Engineering Social Justice and PeaceSame topicInnovative Education and Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207