MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160167395 · doi:10.1177/0306312705052102

Making Classifications (at) Work

2005· article· en· W2160167395 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

VenueSocial Studies of Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintySituatedContradictionConversationObject (grammar)EpistemologyEthnographySociologyWork (physics)Computer scienceClassification schemePsychologyData scienceSocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceCommunicationPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To make and use classifications is human. At least in the sciences, classification activities involve high degrees of uncertainty. Drawing on ethnography and conversation analysis of videotaped scientists, the activities of classifying and making classifications are analyzed considering four types of situations that arise when there is certainty or uncertainty about the object to be classified and the classification scheme to be used. As a collection, the different analyses of everyday scientific work articulate classification as a physically and temporally situated and socially distributed activity that does not eliminate uncertainty and inconsistency, but tends to minimize contradiction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.109 · 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