MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042919328 · doi:10.1177/1206331220938643

Alone Together: Finding Solidarity in a Time of Social Distance

2020· article· en· W3042919328 on OpenAlex

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

VenueSpace and Culture · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingSolidaritySociologyEveryday lifeCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EpistemologySocial relationshipSocial relationSocial psychologySocial distanceSocial contactOrder (exchange)PsychologySocial sciencePoliticsPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an article about quarantine and the paradox of propinquity. There is a common assumption in sociology that people who interact and are in close physical contact develop social relationships. It is also believed that proximity and the socius of being with others allows for the coordination of activities and construction of society. During the COVID-19 lockdown, social distance measures made physical interactions near impossible. And the onset of these changes to everyday behaviors prove that society is not limited to propinquity. In order to better understand alternative forms of sociability, this article will introduce two concepts: banality and neighborship. The analysis of these ideas will confirm that interactions are preceded by social feelings, such as conviviality and togetherness. There will also be two short case studies of everyday life that show how, in the time of COVID-19, social feelings existed without physical contact.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.287 · 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