MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204931248 · doi:10.25071/2563-3694.56

“Say Their Names”

2021· article· en· W3204931248 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Melissa McLetchie

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Sociology Journal of Critical Praxis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingForm of the GoodNarrativeFidelityCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Observational studyReflection (computer programming)SociologyPsychologyMedia studiesHistorySocial psychologyLawPolitical scienceLiteratureArtEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Katherine Bischoping and Amber Gazso (2016) use the notion of a “good story” to evaluate how successfully the storyteller conveys their message to the reader. The goal of this observational reflection paper is to explore whether the same criteria of good storytelling (i.e., good reportability, good liveability, good coherence, and good fidelity) can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of narratives told by prisoner rights protestors. I draw on my firsthand experience of a protest outside the Central East Correctional Facility in Lindsay, Ontario to develop my evaluation and conclude that the stories I observed can be analyzed using this criterion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.375 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Sociology Journal of Critical PraxisSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207