MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114870533 · doi:10.1017/s0040557420000502

Affect, Animals, and Autists: Feeling around the Edges of the Human in Performance By Marla Carlson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2018; pp. xiv + 259, 15 illustrations. $75 cloth, $29.95 paper, $29.95 e-book.

2020· article· en· W3114870533 on OpenAlexaff
Monica Mattfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre Survey · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingAffect (linguistics)PsychologyPsychoanalysisEnvironmental ethicsGerontologySocial psychologyPhilosophyMedicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Affect, Animals, and Autists: Feeling around the Edges of the Human in Performance By Marla Carlson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2018; pp. xiv + 259, 15 illustrations. $29.95 e-book. - Volume 62 Issue 1

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.008

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheatre SurveySame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207