MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118935525 · doi:10.3138/jcs-2020-5412

Introduction

2020· article· en· W3118935525 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ronald Cummings, Sharlee Cranston-Reimer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerSociologyPoliticsIndigenousField (mathematics)DiasporaNarrativeRace (biology)Gender studiesState (computer science)Relation (database)Critical reflectionEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This discussion offers a reflection on some of the shifts and developments in the field of queer studies in Canada since the turn of the century. It situates these developments against, and in relation to, a longer history of queer politics in Canada while also emphasizing key moments and critical turns. Also examined here are the ways in which Indigenous studies, decolonial critiques, diaspora studies, and critical race studies have offered key interventions and heralded new horizons within the field. In thinking about these interventions and intersections, we frame our account through an emphasis on returns and revisions rather than a discourse of progress, which is what typically defines Canadian state narratives.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207