MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117519808 · doi:10.33137/cjal-rcbu.v6.33980

The Antinomies of Academic Freedom

2020· article· en· W3117519808 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sam Popowich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Academic Librarianship · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Realism in Sociology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic freedomPerspective (graphical)Intellectual freedomSociologyPower (physics)TransphobiaPolitical scienceEpistemologyHigher educationLawGender studiesPhilosophyCensorshipComputer scienceTransgender

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article challenges the dominant conception of academic freedom by critiquing the liberal philosophy that underpins it. The article uses recent issues around trans rights in both public and academic librarianship to show how the dominant liberal conception of academic freedom supports transphobia. It then uses Antonio Negri's theory of consituent power to offer an alternative perspective on academic freedom and how this alternative conception might better support trans rights in universities and libraries.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.074
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Academic LibrarianshipSame topicCritical Realism in SociologyFrench-language works237,207