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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diverse studies of diagnostic work in this book give shape to a new view of diagnostic work. They highlight just how much more than individual cognitive capability is needed, the close relationship between analysis and intervention, the often implicit nature of diagnosis, and the fact that there are several degrees or levels of diagnostic work. Different knowledges, motivations, skills and forms of expertise are mobilised in often collaborative and embodied encounters between people and objects. Matter and matters are made to speak in many ways through social, material and embodied practices. We would like to argue that this ʼnew view’ of diagnostic work does not just ‘explain’ diagnosis in a more precise and sensitive manner. Indeed, in light of the rich descriptions in this book, the attempt to summarise the new view above exposes explanation as an unsatisfactorily abstract endeavour. The studies in this book, importantly, provide much more than explanation. They exhibit the specificities of diagnostic practices in different settings, some important intended and unintended consequences, moral and political implications, as well as opportunities for change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it