MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1556442966

Achieving Obligation in Information Organization: Some Novel Approaches

2009· article· en· W1556442966 on OpenAlexaff
Cary S. Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information organized in any fashion needs to be understood, needs to be communicated in order to be useful.\nBaudrillard’s views on consumers in and of a postmodern society are employed to describe the users (researchers) vis-à-vis interactions with the metadata described. Hyperreality leads naturally into Introna’s call for a personal relationship as the sine qua non of obligation. This, along with Wittgenstein’s notion of ambiguities in language (meaning) grounded in activities and practices, leads to an ethical level of practice.\nA number of models are suggested to aid in communication and achieve obligation in information organization.

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)0.007
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.049
Scholarly communication0.0130.019
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicLaw in Society and Culture→French-language works237,207→