MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031162626 · doi:10.4000/lisa.11367

Interview with Paul Auster

2020· article· en· W3031162626 on OpenAlex
Inge Birgitte Siegumfeldt, François Hugonnier, Paul Auster

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

VenueRevue LISA / LISA e-journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Education and Society
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeArtHumanitiesLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paul Auster kindly agreed to comment on some of the perspectives offered in the essays included in the issue of LISA e-journal during an interview conducted by I. B. Siegumfeldt and François Hugonnier at his home in Brooklyn on 14th November 2019. • I. B. SIEGUMFELDT: When you had finished 4 3 2 1, you said to me that you felt freer writing this massive narrative than ever before, that you had liberated yourself from a certain type of sentence and turned to another type, or a multiplicity of ...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.192 · 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