MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Epistemic injustice, face-to-face encounters and caring institutions

2019· article· en· W2981648679 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Bourgault

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Care and Caring · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFeminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)CredibilityScholarshipInjusticeSociologyPoliticsDemocracyEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent care ethics scholarship has reflected on how to render socio-political institutions more inclusive/democratic. This project resonates with that of Miranda Fricker, who proposes means to diminish exclusions and epistemic injustices in institutions. This article considers two of these remedies, which sit in tension: one entails the unveiling of particulars, whereas the other involves the veiling of particulars (for example, the concealing of names and bodily features). The article insists on the significance of time and contact in care delivery, and on the need to consider epistemic wrongs within an economy of attention and credibility.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Care and CaringSame topicFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesFrench-language works237,207