MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102058087 · doi:10.1177/0894318406286593

Human Becoming Criticism—A Critique of Florczak’s Study on the Lived Experience of Sacrificing Something Important

2006· review· en· W2102058087 on OpenAlexaff
Gail J. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPolish-Jewish Holocaust Memory Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticismPhenomenonEpistemologyCritical appraisalSociologyAestheticsPsychologyPhilosophyArtLiteratureMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a critical appraisal of Kristine Florczak's Parse research method study on the phenomenon of sacrificing something important. The processes of Mitchell's framework for human becoming criticism-sketching the horizon of understanding, illuminating artistic disclosure, and enhancing the original with artform-are utilized.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.035
Scholarly communication0.0070.014
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicPolish-Jewish Holocaust Memory StudiesFrench-language works237,207