MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167133869 · doi:10.1177/0957926504046503

There’s Risks in Everything: Extreme-Case Formulations and Accountability in Inquiry Testimony

2004· article· en· W2167133869 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscourse & Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCabinet (room)AccountabilityContext (archaeology)SociologyPolitical scienceHistoryLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on the video record of a recent inquiry into the causes of water contamination in a small town in Ontario, Canada, this article presents an analysis of evasive strategies. The analysis focuses on the use of ‘extreme case formulations’ such as ‘there’s risks in everything’ and ‘every meeting of Cabinet or Cabinet Committee is important’ (Pomerantz, 1986; Sacks, 1995). Within the context of inquiry testimony, such formulations allowed the thenpremier of Ontario to avoid having to account for possibly blameworthy actions.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.132 · 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