What Do We Do Wednesday? On Beginning the Class as University‐Specific Work: A Preliminary Study<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Je pose la question: «Qu'en est‐il au juste des activités des universités qui en font précisément des universités?» Et je l'aborde ethnométhodologiquement d'une manière préliminaire, en examinant la réalisation interactionnelle de ce qu'est, pour les parties présentes, d'une manière observable et rapportable, le début d'un cours à l'université. Rechercher une réponse à la question, étant donné les renseignements sur cassette audio disponibles, provoque l'utilisation réfléchie par les membres des ressources contextuelles catégorielles, séquentielles et autres rendues disponibles par l'encadrement. Les questions de la signification analytique de la méthode documentaire d'interprétation et de l'abstraction des catégories d'adhésion sont brièvement reprises. I pose the question—just what is university‐specific about the activities of universities?—and address it ethnomethodologically in a preliminary way by examining the interactional accomplishment of what is, for the parties present, observably and reportably the beginning of a class at a university. Pursuing an answer to the question, given the audiotaped data to hand, turns on members' reflexive use of the categorical, sequential, and otherwise contextual resources made available by the setting. The questions of the analytic significance of the documentary method of interpretation and of the abstractness of membership categories are briefly taken up.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".