MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125010840 · doi:10.29173/cmplct21452

The Complexity of Care

2014· article· en· W2125010840 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueComplicity An International Journal of Complexity and Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisequilibriumProcess (computing)Vulnerability (computing)Engineering ethicsPsychologyEthical codeSociologyComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The profession of teaching is unique because of the extent to which a teacher becomes involved in the lives of their "clients". The level of care required to support students well can be intense, confusing, and overwhelming. Relationships co-evolve within an ever-changing process and care is considered an essential aspect of complex relationships between students and teachers. While we do have many standard guidelines to help us, such as codes of ethics, rules, and policies, this paper examines their limitations. The ethics of care require more than standards or guidelines. To mitigate these limitations, we offer a more complex way of thinking as a way to navigate the dynamic disequilibrium of caring relationships. In the process, we emphasize the need for caring teachers to embrace their own vulnerability. This way of thinking provides us with an ecological ethical approach for engaging in professional relationships that promotes respect, safety, and self-worth for all involved.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.291 · 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