MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893872290 · doi:10.31275/2018/1321

UFOs: Reframing the Debate edited by Robbie Graham

2018· article· en· W2893872290 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Thieme

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scientific Exploration · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingPsychoanalysisHistorySociologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UFO studies are stuck in a rut. Mark Rodeghier, the Director of CUFOs (The Center for UFO Studies) states that “the field has been stagnating and has run afoul on the rocks of abductions, government coverups/disclosure, and the lack of quality sightings.” UFOs: Reframing the Debate is an anthology of fourteen essays edited by Robbie Graham, and an attempt to respond to that morass by creating a radical new perspective on UFOs. The very first essay, by Canadian science writer Chris Rutkowski, states the dilemma precisely: “UFO belief becomes cultlike when adherents become closed to any interpretation of UFOs as conventional phenomena, and become something closer to religious zealots.” Unfortunately, that insight characterizes most of rest of the essays in this book. Religious zealots there are, in abundance. UFOs: Reframing the Debate shoots at a high target – the wholesale revisioning of how to approach UFO studies. The contributors intend to alter fundamentally the way we approach the subject. To that end, Graham collects diverse perspectives ranging from a Marxist critique to likening UFO encounters to poltergeist activity. Some of the speculation in these essays is provocative and suggestive. I paused now and again to consider some interesting insights. So the collection does sometimes wing the target – the target being, how to best approach UFO phenomena as a significant field of inquiry, while not locking in to an interpretation of UFO phenomena as physical craft – the “nuts-and-bolts interpretation"? But there are no real bulls-eyes. Lapses in logic, imprecise language, and arguments directed mostly at an ETH (extra-terrestrial hypothesis) or nuts-and-bolts bogeyman undermine the intentions of these highly speculative ruminations. Rejection of materialism results in a never-never land of pure thought. I wanted to reach for a balloon full of dried peas to bang them on the heads as Jonathan Swift suggested we do to bring people back to earth. That lack of grounding undermines the seriousness of this undertaking.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueJournal of Scientific ExplorationSame topicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial LifeFrench-language works237,207