MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W243280498 · doi:10.1525/aft.2008.35.5.17

Sign Language as Politics

2008· article· en· W243280498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Diack

Bibliographic record

VenueAfterimage · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationSign (mathematics)PoliticsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| March 01 2008 Sign Language as Politics INFINITU ET CONTINI: REPEATED HISTORIES, REINVENTED RESISTANCES SMACK MELLON MULTIPLEXBROOKLYN, NEW YORK NOVEMBER 17–DECEMBER 30, 2007 Heather Diack Heather Diack HEATHER DIACK is a PhD candidate in art history at the University of Toronto. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Afterimage (2008) 35 (5): 17–18. https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2008.35.5.17 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Heather Diack; Sign Language as Politics. Afterimage 1 March 2008; 35 (5): 17–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.2008.35.5.17 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAfterimage Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2008 Afterimage/Visual Studies Workshop, unless otherwise noted. Reprints require written permission and acknowledgement of previous publication in Afterimage.2008 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.023

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfterimageSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207