MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793758728 · doi:10.7764/disena.12.88-103

The Critical Experience of Making: Interview with Matt Ratto. Interviewers: I. Farías & T. Sánchez Criado

2018· article· es· W2793758728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matt Ratto, Ignacio Farías, Tomás Sánchez Criado

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Diseña · 2018
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipSociologyOrder (exchange)PoliticsMedia studiesPolitical scienceLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matt Ratto is Director of the Critical Making Lab in the Faculty of In­formation at the University of Toronto. Ratto coined the term “critical making” to describe hands-on activities to explore the relationship between technology and society. In this interview, the author of DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media (MIT Press, 2014) speaks about the need to develop situations in order to experiment critically with matter, in order to develop newer understandings of the politics of technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista DiseñaSame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207