MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592362741 · doi:10.1108/k-10-2012-0080

The interspecies educator's cybernetic world

2013· article· en· W1592362741 on OpenAlexaff
Ramsey Affifi

Bibliographic record

VenueKybernetes · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberneticsOriginalityValue (mathematics)IntersubjectivityOrder (exchange)Computer scienceEngineering ethicsEpistemologyManagement scienceSociologyCognitive scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial sciencePsychologyEngineeringPhilosophyQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to interconnect pedagogy and biology via second-order cybernetics. Design/methodology/approach – The approach taken is that of a synthesis. Findings – Biology can better deal with intersubjectivity within and between species by incorporating approaches and theory from education inquiry. Conversely, educators can de-anthropocentrize their discipline by entering into learning relationships with other species. By rallying around the concept of “eduction”, second-order cybernetics plays a role in both syntheses. Practical implications – De-anthropocentrizing education could have practical value in creating ecologically relevant education for children and in developing more integrated environmental impact assessments. Originality/value – Finding convergence between the study of life and forms of practitioner inquiry in education research, and connecting these to the environmental movement.

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)0.007
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 venueKybernetesSame topicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology StudiesFrench-language works237,207