MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1803760109 · doi:10.36900/suburban.v2i1.110

Warum denn gleich ontologisieren? Und wenn nicht, warum dann ANT? Kommentar zu Alexa Färbers „Potenziale freisetzen“

2014· article· de· W1803760109 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuesub\urban zeitschrift für kritische stadtforschung · 2014
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovation, Technology, and Society
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie und Assemblageforschung in Stadtforschung und Humangeographie beanspruchen für sich, das genau Hinsehen und die Materialität der Dinge stark zu machen. Sie positionieren sich damit gegen Forschung, die große Diskurse ins Zentrum rückt. Im Kommentar schlage ich vor, beide Positionen – die „Diskursphase“ und die „Materialismusphase“ – im Hinblick auf ihre politischen Einsätze zu kontextualisieren. Ich werfe die Frage auf, ob für diese Politiken die jeweiligen Ontologien tatsächlich notwendig sind, und schlage vor, sich stattdessen darauf zu besinnen, was die beste kritische Stadtforschung schon immer ausgemacht hat, nämlich genau hinzuschauen, die Dinge ernst zu nehmen und nicht schon alles vorher zu wissen.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · 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