MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2304049937 · doi:10.14288/1.0105500

Fo(u)r one

2011· article· en· W2304049937 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Safdie

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

this is the second draft of the first part of a four part composition . why FO(U)R ONE ? because four is one is that : summer autumn winter spring are one year, one cycle is that : a man born-begetting-aging-dying lives one life,moves through-in one instant. and the oneness holds for the i and the you who speak speak because the i has a you ; in another way the i is the you—the i reaching for its psychic counterpart, for its self ; in still another way the you is the organic counterpart of the i . further, there is the you:you god, man, dog, or so . and there is also the you which the i seeks , and seeks to know, understand within the i—reaching, sometime touching, but never arriving . what is this point ? the point which moves in a line into a circle which turns into a sphere is a point/line/circle/sphere of confrontations—flashed,faded in and out,sketched,gestured , in a stroke, a sometime utterance—confrontations only--for what follows in FO(U)R ONE is only the point which moves in cycles, but moves for ONE (you) as you move : move between your in and out sides—for the i speaking its being speaks a language (though a language of words that can not tell the is of being) a language opening/closing (as mouth to anus) closing/opening through-in the point the space of a window—confrontations in (Y)our window (the door is still,as ever, shut) . what moves within,what turns outside : all that and whatever more there is between , is to come in the three parts which will follow a rewritten FO(U)R ONE. otherwise structurally : this arrangement is a double concerto in four movements : the i and the you are the two solo instruments in counterpoint ; the confrontations in shifts are the orchestral-background ones and more . . . and so

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3990.303

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.084 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicMusicology and Musical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207