MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965549326 · doi:10.33137/cjal-rcbu.v5.32163

On the front line?

2019· article· en· W2965549326 on OpenAlex
Melanie Boyd, Ozouf Sénamin Amedegnato

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Academic Librarianship · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia, Religion, Digital Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorLexiconFront lineFront (military)SociologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceLinguisticsArtificial intelligencePhilosophyEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Is there room for war metaphor in academic libraries? Is there a good, or justifiable, reason for its use? In this paper, we argue the answer to these questions is no. The paper will discuss the nature of metaphor in general, the effects of its use, and why those effects matter. Grounded in this discussion, it will consider and analyze the use of war metaphor, specifically in the academic library world. Finally, it will offer suggestions for how, through individual and collective effort, the metaphor of war might be purged from the academic library lexicon.
 

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.157 · 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