MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211125704

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS ON PARADIGMS, DISCIPLINARITY, AND RESEARCH INTEGRATION

2010· article· en· W3211125704 on OpenAlexaff
Tanis Doe

Bibliographic record

VenueTRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)IdeologySociologyEpistemologyPublic relationsEngineering ethicsWork (physics)Social scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Write a short piece (around 3-5 pages) which documents your understanding of at least two paradigms in disability studies. 2. In this assignment you must demonstrate familiarity with issues and readings from the course. Selecting one or more disciplines/professions (public health, social work, sociology, law) identify the ideological or philosophical underpinnings of the related policies or services. 3. In this assignment you must demonstrated the ability to collect and analyse research findings, add your own perspective, support it with evidence and make recommendations for change.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for SociologySame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207