MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Academic Freedom and Individual Rights

2001· letter· en· W2073386590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roy M. Poses

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2001
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffensiveHarassmentPremiseHarmLawAcademic freedomAction (physics)Political scienceExpression (computer science)CivilitySurpriseSociologyPublic relationsPsychologyHigher educationSocial psychologyEpistemologyManagementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.027
Scholarly communication0.0200.009
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.025

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicAcademic Freedom and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207