Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional work has great allure. Some of it is alluring because it is widely seen as prestigious, well paying, and intensely interesting. Here is the best of all occupational worlds. Other such work, however, is just as alluring, even though some of it is less prestigious, pays less well, but is nonetheless also intensely interesting. Law and medicine are archetypical examples of the first. Famous painters, musicians, and writers exemplify the second; they have high prestige, intensely interesting work, but in most cases poorer remuneration. Nevertheless, many in this second group, though they have intensely interesting work, are comparatively weakly paid and have more ordinary public regard. Thus, for every celebrated painter or writer, there are hundreds of more ordinary counterparts. The latter make a modest living at their art, keep body and soul together by supplementary employment, or are helped by the greater earnings of an employed spouse or partner (see also Gutting, 2013). They are part-time professionals (see later). And there are at least as many amateurs, some of whom are of professional quality.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".