MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313723873 · doi:10.1177/0275074013490991

Metis

2013· article· en· W2313723873 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Public Administration · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Science and Policy Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Economy, Trade and Industry
KeywordsMetisScrutinyPrudenceAction (physics)EthosLegitimacySociologyEpistemologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When seeking to accomplish public ends in a prudent manner, administrators are occasionally put in precarious situations that require a degree of metis. Metis is a distinct form of knowledge characterized by a mixture of wile and wisdom and is valuable because it can offer viable alternatives for solving complex problems in contingent situations. Individualized problems often require administrators to forego routinized recommendations and pursue a path to prudence through shrewd thinking and action. However, if metis is not properly contained, it runs the risk of sinking under the weight of unscrupulous motivation and of negatively affecting the legitimacy of administrative action. What is important is that a crafty ethos is bound within a proper sphere. This is why a bounded metis informed by a modified version of intermediate scrutiny may provide a meaningful guide that legitimizes the ability of administrators to handle ambiguous situations in a prudent manner.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.372 · 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