MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Bog‐like Ground on Which We Tread: Arbitrating Academic Freedom in Canada*

2002· article· fr· W2084790749 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationArbitrageMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)Political scienceHumanitiesSociologyLaw and economicsWelfare economicsLawPhilosophyEpistemologyEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le sens de la liberté universitaire est en partie construit socialement au moyen de l'arbitrage. Cet article examine ce processus dans un contexte légal plus large et analyse les cas d'arbitrage de liberté universitaire les plus pertinents au Canada. Il étudie ce que nous révèle la construction sociale des arbitres concernant la liberté universitaire et comment les conditions conceptuelles et structurales de l'arbitrage influent sur son sens. The meaning of academic freedom is, in part, socially constructed through arbitration. This article examines that process in the larger legal context and analyses the most relevant Canadian arbitrations of academic freedom. It examines what the social construction by arbitrators tells us about academic freedom and how the conceptual and structural conditions of arbitration affect its meaning.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.212 · 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