MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W334098630 · doi:10.14453/ltc.535

Chewing in the name of justice: the taste of law in action

2012· article· en· W334098630 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw/text/culture · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American and Latino Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTasteAction (physics)Economic JusticeLawPolitical sciencePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first issue of John Layman and Rob Guillory’s Chew was released in June 2009 by Image Comics at a time when the American comic book market was so dominated by stories written within the superhero genre that ‘comic books and superheroes [had] almost become synonyms’ (Rhodes 2008: 6). Within this superhero market, Chew was remarkably not a comic book about a superhero. Instead, Chew is a New York Times bestselling, Eisner award-winning series about Tony Chu, a Chinese- American cibopath. As a neologism created by the comic’s authors, cibopathy describes the ability to receive psychic impressions from whatever one eats. Although Chu has this extraordinary ability, he does not have a secret identity, a costume, an origin story or a mission to save the world from evil. Instead, Tony works as a detective for the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a possible future where the FDA has become the most powerful government agency in the world. While the Department of Homeland Security enhanced the scope of police powers as a result of the catastrophic events associated with September 11 in our reality, the FDA has done the same in response to the devastating events associated with an avian flu epidemic in Chew’s alternate reality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.033
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw/text/cultureSame topicLatin American and Latino StudiesFrench-language works237,207