MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2483926886 · doi:10.1057/9780230302204_3

Are Attitudes Important?

2011· book-chapter· en· W2483926886 on OpenAlexaff
John Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Studies in Language
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEpistemologySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the discussion in the preceding chapter, and as a precursor to the specificities that will be found in the following one, this chapter considers whether or not attitudes are as important as some have made them out to be. None of the three chapters in this part of the book, however, provides any sort of comprehensive overview of attitude enquiries; I have already noted the large social-scientific literature bearing upon attitudes per se and, within that, there is also a sizeable body of work dealing with language perceptions and motivations. Some excellent recent surveys by Howard Giles and his colleagues can be recommended: see, for instance, Bradac et al. (2001), Garrett (2010), Garrett et al. (2003), Giles and Billings (2004), Giles et al. (2006) and, for a succinct discussion, Giles and Edwards (2010).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicGender Studies in LanguageFrench-language works237,207