MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W31423705 · doi:10.1111/jep.13258

Ábalos, Herreros y Sentkiewicz. Una refundación moderna

2008· article· en· W31423705 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Antón González Capitel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El trabajo del estudio de Abalos y Herreros (ahora convertido en una firma generica que engloba las particulares de Inaki Abalos, Juan Herreros y Renata Sentkiewicz) es bastante conocido y apreciado. Algunas de sus producciones han ocupado ya estas paginas. Podria decirse que en el que hoy se presenta subyace un cierto eclecticismo, aquel que corresponde tanto a nuestra epoca como al sentido comun que preside con logica la obra de los buenos profesionales. Pero este eclecticismo sustenta sus variaciones de identidad en un asentamiento bastante firme en lo que deberiamos llamar la tradicion racionalista, lo que no es hoy ya demasiado corriente. Y, naturalmente, no me refiero a una tradicion aerifica y mas o menos diluida -aquella que corresponde al cultivo continuo del Estilo Internacional como una general e indudable linea moderna tan convencional como segura- si no, por el contrario, a la refundacion que de esa tradicion se hizo en los anos noventa, cuando, liquidadas cualesquiera que fuesen las secuelas del posmoderno, se reinicio el racionalismo con una fuerza que permitia emular, casi, los autenticos inicios de la ya vieja revolucion.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicSocial Sciences and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207