MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471678294 · doi:10.7202/1070463ar

Respect With Recognition? A Defence of the OCSTA’s “Respecting Difference” Policy

2020· article· en· W2471678294 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michael Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Inquiry in Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)EpistemologyPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Philosopher Lauren Bialystok argues that some of the ideas within Ontario’s Catholic trustees’ document entitled ‘Respecting Difference’ fail to respect homosexual Catholic schoolchildren. I argue that Bialystok’s argument is unsuccessful because she begs at least three questions.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.052
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0220.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Inquiry in EducationSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207