MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530794938 · doi:10.1177/1060826516671307

Grow a Pair! Critically Analyzing Masculinity and the Testicles

2016· article· en· W2530794938 on OpenAlex
Frank G. Karioris, Jonathan A. Allan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Men s Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityPhallus (fungus)Object (grammar)Identity (music)Field (mathematics)Position (finance)SociologyGender studiesPhilosophyMale genitaliaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The testicles are remarkably important to the construction of male identity. We tell men to “grow a pair.” So what, we might ask, then is the place of the testicles in men’s studies? Truth be told, the testicles have not occupied significant attention in gender studies, and certainly not in the same way as the phallus has. This article, therefore, seeks to position the testicles as an object of study in the field of men’s studies.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.286 · 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