MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115615186

Deserving, Gifting, and Needs

2020· article· en· W3115615186 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miki Kashtan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian women's studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligion, Gender, and Enlightenment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyEthnologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’auteur s’interroge sur les « besoins » et les « merites « dans le contexte du don. Son but est de poser toute la notion du merite et de proposer un cadre bas e sur le bon vouloir afin d’assurer le transit des ressources mondiales. Elle suggere des exemples ordinaires d’economie historique avant d’assurer que c’est le glissement vers l’agriculture qui a motive l’accumulation et la possession des ressources plutot que sur leur circulation. Ce geste vers une nouvelle structure economique a developpe des recits a propos de qui meritait et qui ne meritait pas selon la loi divine ou la moralite pour justifier les inegalites inherentes; une discussion autour du don comme economie alternative qui n’est pas attachee la valeur mais plutot aux besoins et aux soins. Elle termine sur une image d’un monde futur qui serait base sur le soin et la collaboration plutot que sur la raison.

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 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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueCanadian women's studiesSame topicReligion, Gender, and EnlightenmentFrench-language works237,207