Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I expand upon the research on authority delegation begun by Overgaard and myself in our 2016 paper Authority Delegation. I argue that singular authority delegation – in which a community delegates authority over a given topic to a single expert community – should be distinguished from cases of multiple authority delegation. A community engages in multiple authority delegation iff that community delegates authority over a given topic to more than one expert community. Furthermore, multiple authority delegation can be further divided into two types: hierarchical and non-hierarchical. I examine two cases of authority delegation in the art market and argue that these cases model instances of hierarchical authority delegation.Suggested Modifications[Sciento-2017-0007]: Accept the following definitions of subtypes of authority delegation: Singular authority delegation ≡ community A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over topic x iff community A delegates authority over topic x to exactly one community.Multiple authority delegation ≡ community A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over topic x iff community A delegates authority over topic x to more than one community. Hierarchical authority delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different communities are delegated different degrees of authority over topic x.Non-hierarchical authority delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different communities are delegated the same degree of authority over topic x. [Sciento-2017-0008]: Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Monet: A work claimed to be by Monet is authentic if it is considered authentic by the Wildenstein Institute.[Sciento-2017-0009]: Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Picasso: A work claimed to be by Picasso is authentic if it is has been certified as authentic by both Maya Widmaier-Picasso and Claude Ruiz-Picasso.[Sciento-2017-0010]: Accept the following reconstruction of the authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Modigliani between 1997 and 2015: A work claimed to be by Modigliani is authentic iff (1) it is in the Ceroni catalogue raisonné or (2) if it is not in catalogue and has been certified as authentic by Marc Restellini.[Sciento-2017-0011]: Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Renoir: A work claimed to be by Renoir is authentic iff (1) it has been certified as authentic by the Wildenstein institute or (2) it has not been dismissed by the Wildenstein institute and it is included in the Bernheim-Jeune catalogue.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".