MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965261602 · doi:10.33112/ritid.18.3.9

Er ég vondur femínisti?

2018· article· is· W2965261602 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aðalsteinn Eyþórsson

Bibliographic record

VenueRitið · 2018
Typearticle
Languageis
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtGlobeTheologyPhilosophyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Þýðingin að þessu sinni er grein kanadíska rithöfundarins Margaret Atwood, „Am I a Bad Feminist?“ sem birtist í dagblaðinu The Globe and Mail í Toronto í ársbyrjun 2018. Tilefni þess að Atwood skrifaði greinina eru atburðir sem áttu sér stað í Háskólanum í Bresku-Kólumbíu fyrir nokkrum árum þegar kennari við skólann var leystur frá störfum. Mikil umræða skapaðist um málið og viðbrögð rithöfunda og annarra sem kenna má við kanadíska menningarstofnun leiddu til klofnings í kanadískum bókmenntaheimi. Forsaga og eftirköst greinarinnar eru rakin í inngangi ritstjórnar og Aðalsteins Eyþórssonar, en óhætt er að segja að hún hafi vakið töluverð viðbrögð.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 venueRitiðSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207