MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110512086 · doi:10.1177/0270467607307224

The Knowledge Bluff

2007· article· en· W2110512086 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Academic Research Areas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyCivilizationBluffDual (grammatical number)Knowledge managementSociologyEpistemologyEngineering ethicsEngineeringComputer sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our knowledge “system” is built up from disciplines and specialties as its components, which are “wired” by patterns of collaboration that constitute its organization. The intellectual autonomy of these components prevents this knowledge system from adequately accounting for what we have gradually discovered during the past 50 years: In human life, society, and the biosphere, everything is related to everything else. It has also created a dual mode of knowing and doing, one embedded in experience and culture and the other separated from them. It is becoming increasingly evident that the lacunae in our knowledge system are directly related to the challenges faced by our civilization. This article outlines a proposal to begin delimiting these lacunae by inserting new components on the basis of roundtables into the knowledge system.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.034
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.330 · 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