Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conversations between colleagues who hold divergent views of a case or practice situation often take the form of a win-lose debate in which contenders, arguing from within their respective frameworks, find they are unable to reach mutual understanding. The resulting impasse makes mutual understanding and collaboration difficult. Our typical way of resolving the impasse is to invoke the evidence for our own position, hoping that the facts somehow speak for themselves. Strangely, this may only exacerbate the impasse and worsen our view of our colleagues, whom we presume to be ignoring the facts. This article attempts to show that reflecting on the frame--not debating the facts--might be a more helpful way to approach such impasses and to reach mutual understanding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.162 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.054 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".