MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159807730 · doi:10.1162/leon_a_00780

Hybrids Are Hubs: Transdisciplinarity, the Two Cultures and the Special Status of Artscientists

2014· article· en· W2159807730 on OpenAlexaff
François‐Joseph Lapointe

Bibliographic record

VenueLeonardo · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransdisciplinarityThe artsSociologyComputer scienceVisual artsEpistemologySocial scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much has been said and written about the two-culture paradigm separating the world between artists and scientists. On one side of this debate are those who accept this cultural art/science divide. On the other side are those who reject it altogether to promote a better integration of artscience practices. In this paper, the author presents a network analysis of 40 papers submitted to the SEAD Network for Science, Engineering, Arts and Design and tests the hypothesis that the papers submitted by artists and scientists are disconnected in the corresponding graph, as predicted by the art/science separation. Rejecting this hypothesis will provide support for the alternative artscience integration.

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 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.035
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeonardoSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207