MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107484652

Thomas Hobbes, Comedian

2020· article· en· W3107484652 on OpenAlex
Travis D. Smith

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

VenueThe Political Science Reviewer · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatredContemptLEVIATHAN (cipher)LaughterHarmPoliticsReputationLawRacismSociologyPsychoanalysisCriminologyPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hobbes uses humor deliberately throughout Leviathan. He also says laughter reveals one’s opinion of their superiority in comparison to others, representing a sign of contempt and manifestation of hatred. The use of humor is therefore problematic in a political teaching, such as Hobbes’s, dedicated to combating hate and educating human beings to treat each other as equals. Hobbes deploys humor to criticize elites who do not deserve their reputation or station as well as to portray most people as readily misled. He criticizes humor in order to protect vulnerable people from the harm it does them, while using it to educate or flatter people who might be friendly to his efforts to rescue people from abuse. The eventual consequence is a humorless form of politics suited to the view that it is reasonable in this world to anticipate the manufacture of comical outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.184 · 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