MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604435540 · doi:10.3152/147154303781780506

Book reviews

2003· article· en· W1604435540 on OpenAlex
Jack Stilgoe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Public Policy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)Library sciencePolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contributing to the risk debate Get access In the Chamber of Risks: Understanding Risk Controversies by Leiss William McGill Queen's University Press, 2001, 388, £21.50, 0-7735-2246-8 Jack Stilgoe Jack Stilgoe Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK; Tel: +1 20 7679 2959; E-mail: j.stilgoe@ucl.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Science and Public Policy, Volume 30, Issue 3, June 2003, Page 226, https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780506 Published: 01 June 2003

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.331 · 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