MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215337426 · doi:10.13169/prometheus.36.3.0253

The repression of mètis within digital organizations

2020· article· en· W3215337426 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrometheus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationAutomationComputer scienceAbstractionKnowledge managementAviationProfitability indexData scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringBusinessEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous organizations are placing great emphasis on such techniques as evidence-based protocols to automation and artificial intelligence (AI) with the aim of improving efficiency and maximizing profitability. Such instrumental techniques attempt to formalize all manner of environmental phenomena through abstraction and categorization. They have also reduced organizational capability to deal with dynamic environmental complexities, uncertainties and ambiguities. The aim of this paper is to examine organizational approaches relying heavily on formalized/automated protocols in aviation, medicine and other professional domains targeted by AI development. Such approaches repress the human capability known as mètis , which organizations require to deal successfully with dynamic ambiguities in the form of unexpected emergencies. Mètis is briefly explained, and examples of organizational barriers preventing its manifestation are given.

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.

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)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.236 · 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