Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postmodernism emerged in the mid-20th century in the context of postwar Europe where philosophers and artists were taking increasingly skeptical and critical positions on modernist thinking and practice. Postmodernism is not a single organized and coherent perspective; it is a collection of related philosophies, techniques, models, and perspectives that take a skeptical and critical perspective on thinking and practice. Ontologically, postmodernism is predicated on the belief that power and its underlying meanings, manipulations, and ideologies shape our ability to act in and think about the world. Epistemologically, postmodernism seeks to explore and understand underlying meanings, structures, and intents in the world and to consider alternative explanations and interpretations for them. Axiologically, postmodernism can be used to analyze value in the context of inequity, oppression, and hegemony within social systems and structures. Due to the lack of coherence within postmodernist thought, there is no one definitive methodological stance. However, there are many postmodernism-informed methodological stances, which vary both in terms of what is examined and how it is examined. As an approach within medical education, postmodernist perspectives can help to expose and analyze the political and ideological positioning of much of what is done, particularly in the interests of addressing systemic problems of justice and equity. It is somewhat paradoxical that postmodernism allows researchers to challenge the nature and expression of truth, and it allows them to problematize and deconstruct the ideologies and agendas of those who are themselves challenging the nature and expression of truth.
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 | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".