MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004360848 · doi:10.1080/01490400.2020.1720872

Theorypracticing Differently: Re-Imagining the Public, Health, and Social Research

2020· article· en· W3004360848 on OpenAlex
Lisbeth A. Berbary

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPosthumanist Ethics and Activism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyEmbodied cognitionPluralism (philosophy)DisciplineEpistemologySocial scienceEnvironmental ethics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a pluralism of critical and deconstructive social theories I explore how we might begin to think differently about the public and health in ways that demand us to also thinkact differently within social inquiries in our transdisciplinary fields. Bringing together multiple concerns for the human, our environments, and the sustainability of our futurities with more-than-human beings, I explore the potentials of thinking through social theories in ways that expand our inquiries toward more just, inclusive, and collaborative anti-disciplinary projects that positively transform social policy and practices. I will conclude by illuminating my own line of inquiry concerning theorypractices—intra-active research entanglements that simultaneously incorporate social theories with methodological design to create positive social transformations in the embodied experiences and material conditions of individuals and groups targeted, silenced, erased, excluded, or neglected within our communities.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.436
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.055 · 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