MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070973507 · doi:10.1080/10862960009548077

Critical Issues: Researching Complexity

2000· article· en· W2070973507 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

VenueJournal of Literacy Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricReading (process)SociologyEnlightenmentEpistemologyCritical theoryPedagogyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay suggests that recent developments in Complexity Theory have the potential to offer new insights to reader-response researchers. Presented as a rubric that collects theoretical understandings from a number of domains such as ecology, biology, neurology, immunology, psychology, education, sociology, economics, anthropology, & evolutionary theory, Complexity Theory is developed as an antidote to Enlightenment beliefs about Reason and the separation of knowledge from knowers. In addition to providing a brief discussion of what Complexity Theory suggests about mind, selfhood, intelligence, and practices of reading, the essay offers a brief discussion of the import of these reconceptualizations to reader-response researchers. It is concluded that developing more complex reader-response research practices will require both universities and university researchers to develop new commitments and practices.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.313 · 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