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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a very thoughtful reaction to our book, Kevin Davis points to the ambiguity in the use of the term experimentation, and carefully distinguishes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from other forms of experimentation, which are associated with the concept of “experimentalist governance”. The central point of his piece is to call attention to the fact that institutional bypasses are primarily associated with “experimentalist governance” and to warn the reader of the limited inferences one can make based on the type of experimentation proposed in our book. More specifically, Davis argues that institutional bypasses do not allow us to truly compare the performance of two institutions, in a way that RCTs would. What is being observed is the performance of the bypass along with the dominant institution; we do not know how the bypasses would operate if it were the only institution. Therefore, one has to refrain (or at least be extremely careful) in extrapolating from this experiment to the conclusion that the bypass is a superior institutional arrangement. Only randomized controlled trials would allow us to assert if one arrangement is superior to the other.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.143 | 0.002 |
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 it