Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free enquiry is central to the mission of the liberal university. Free enquiry requires freedom of expression. The description by Zweibel and Goldstein of a conflict resolution policy,1 however, was premised on restricting medical students' free expression. The conflict resolution policy was part of an official response to the publication of what Zweibel and Goldstein variously described as “the worst, most disrespectful, misogynistic sex jokes,” “demeaning sexual jokes,” “insulting remarks about particular individuals,” “gratuitous comments about women medical students,” and “inappropriate and offensive content” in a single issue of The Pelican, a University of Ottawa medical student newsletter. The authors did not suggest that these writings conveyed any specific threats of physical harm, or that they were part of a larger pattern of harassment against specific individuals. The official response also included condemnations of The Pelican by multiple administrators, and insistence that “remedial action be taken by The Pelican's editorial board” and its parent organization, the Aesculapian Society. As a result, The Pelican acquiesced to the imposition of an editorial review policy, and to the requirement to balance freedom of expression with, among other things, “creating a respectful environment.” Thus the article is based on an ominous premise: university officials must take remedial action when students write things the officials deem upsetting or offensive. Maybe the authors' acceptance of this premise should not be a surprise. After all, the University of Ottawa's official definition of academic freedom includes obligations “to refrain from harassing, from defaming… and to respect relationships based on trust.”2 Defining academic freedom in terms of prohibition of speech or writing that university officials find harassing, defamatory, or disrespectful is Orwellian doublespeak. This policy subverts the free enquiry that is essential to the mission of the university in a liberal society. Zweibel and Goldstein employed their conflict resolution method to subvert the central mission of the liberal university.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".