Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his excellent paper, Callan (2016) differentiates intellectual safety, which fosters smugness, indifference and lack of effort, from dignity safety, which is needed for participation, learning and engagement.He suggests that college classrooms that reject the first and espouse the second would be ones that focus on "cultivating open-mindedness in a context of disagreement and fostering the civility that would secure dignity safety for all" (p.75).This is an important goal, and Callan makes here a significant contribution to the current discussion-both scholarly and public-on free speech, academic freedom and dignity safety.In what follows, I (1) expand on the suggestion that dignity safety is a threshold condition, contextualizing its role in providing access and on its place in the continuum of safety requirements, (2) consider the overlaps between dignity safety and intellectual safety, and subsequently reject nobility as an appropriate basis for creating a democratic atmosphere, and (3) suggest a democratic alternative to nobility and (Callan's version of) civility for the advancement of a democratic campus culture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".