MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597563908 · doi:10.1080/13668790802048357

Exchange

2008· article· en· W2597563908 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEthics Place & Environment · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIgnoranceObituaryHuman rightsSociologyLawPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes Notes 1 Examples are taken from the fields of occupation health research (pp. 52–56), inquiry into legal judgements (pp. 106–109), clinical medical practice (pp. 112–115, 185–186), understandings of sexual assault and human rights violations (chapter six), and medical research (chapter seven). 2 This way of categorising cases is an adaptation from Nancy Tuana's wonderfully insightful ‘taxonomy of ignorance’ (2006, pp. 3–4). 3 The specific ‘themselves’ of this claim are Amnesty International members and activists advocating on behalf of victims of human rights abuses. 1 See, for the latest example, Byrne (2006), which at the time of writing (September 2007) has been No. 1 on the bestseller lists for months. 2 For two interesting historical overviews, see Roth (2004) and Breines (2006). 1 Some of these remarks are based on Code (2008), which is my contribution to a panel on Ecological Thinking at the Canadian Philosophical Association conference at York University, Toronto, in June 2006. 2 The subversive potential of ecological thinking is impressively explored in Lytle (2007). 3 See also, in this regard, Shrader-Frechette (2002), where she develops her analysis through extensively elaborated case studies. 4 Here I paraphrase Genevieve Lloyd (1986, p. vi) who, in a brief obituary of Simone de Beauvoir, wrote that even Beauvoir's critics ‘operate in a space which she made possible’. 5 Interesting in this regard among numerous recent publications on these matters is Brody (2007). 6 Ursula Franklin thus observes: ‘I feel that “the environment” is now more often a term of befuddlement … Environment essentially means what is around us, with the emphasis on us. It's our environment, not the environment or the habitat of fish, bird, or tree’ (1992, pp. 84–85). 7 Jonathan Lear (2006) is helpful in this regard. He tells of how a reconfigured conception of courage, derived from the practices of the crow in the face of cultural devastation, can open the way to a renewed cultural imaginary. Thanks to Judith Baker for bringing this book to my attention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.122 · 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