MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269107323 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v47i3.54874

Editorial: I Love Freedom

2001· editorial· en· W2269107323 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
George H. Buck

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2001
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Cultural and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMathematics educationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I Love FreedomThe term academic freedom refers to something that scholars supposedly hold sacred: the right to question and to profess a position that may not agree with prevalent thought, policy, practice, or tradition.For academic freedom to function, the institution employing the scholar must also respect the principle of academic freedom.The implications are that no matter how seemingly unorthodox the scholar's position, the institution must follow the idea penned by Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it" (Bartlett, 1947(Bartlett, , p. 1053)).Of course, this does not mean that scholars can ignore laws of libel and slander (holding someone up to hatred, ridicule, and contempt), nor does it mean that scholars can behave in a reckless manner, the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded room when in fact there is no fire at all.Although some institutions challenged the definition of academic freedom in the 19th century through intimidation and censure, the principle has come under the heaviest attack during the 20th century (Horn, 1999).Two notable examples are the cases of Edward C. Tolman, a professor of psychology at the University of California, and Revilo P. Oliver, a professor of classics at the University of Illinois.Both were remarkably different scholars with widely different research interests.Apart from their academic differences, Tolman was an avowed pacifist who spoke against war and opposed the entry of the United States into World War II (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1997).Oliver espoused racist and extreme right-wing views, had been decorated by Mussolini, and was a founding member of the John Birch society (Rahn, 1999).Individuals in the universities that employed these two endeavored to cast them out of the community of scholars, not because they were poor teachers or because they did research of poor quality.They were ostracized because their views were contrary to what was considered "politically correct" at the time.Following America's entry into World War II, Tolman was dismissed for not signing a loyalty oath, because he contended that doing so would impinge on his academic freedom (Hergenhahn & Olson, 1997).He was reinstated eventually, after the initial hysteria surrounding the US's entry into the World War II subsided.In the mid-1960s, because of Oliver's increasing publicity of his political views and inflammatory racist ideas, there were calls in the University of Illinois for his dismissal.After considering Oliver's extreme views, his record as an excellent scholar and teacher, and the principle of academic freedom, the Board of Trustees voted 8-1 against proceeding with dismissal (Rahn, 1999).Rahn also notes that the Editor of the student newspaper at the University of Illinois, Roger Ebert (who later became a well-known film critic who appears on television), wrote that only a strong society could permit Oliver such freedom.It can be argued further that the political views of these two scholars had nothing to do with their competence as scholars and as educators, especially as there was no evidence that either advocated their

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0330.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.018

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.401 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicInterdisciplinary Cultural and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207