Bibliographic record
Abstract
It will be recalled that Phillips and Butterworth, at the beginning of the faculty committee hearing, admitted past and present membership in the Communist Party and that, with this admission, the University administration dropped other charges for the purpose of having a clear-cut case. The other cases, it will be noted, do involve other complaints and, therefore, deviate somewhat from the clear issue of Party membership. Two points need special emphasis before I attempt to discuss the central argument on the effect of Party membership on qualification for the teaching profession. First, it should be repeated that action was taken in these cases only after a full and scrupulously fair hearing, conducted in accordance with traditional safeguards against summary and capricious action by either the University President or the Board of Regents. While no attempt will be made here to review these procedures, it should be understood that due process, as outlined by the faculty-written Administrative Code of the University of Washington, was observed to the letter. Respondents were represented by counsel of their own choice; there was no restriction upon their rights of producing or questioning evidence; and other traditions of Anglo-Saxon law were fully observed. Full hearings were provided by all individuals and agencies participating in the decision. No complaint has been heard from any informed quarter that the procedure was a witch hunt or an infringement of any basic American right. Second, it should be re-emphasized that the Regents' action in dismissing Phillips and Butterworth was not in contradiction to the finding of the faculty committee which first heard the case. This re-emphasis is necessary because the impression has been encouraged in some quarters that the faculty committee's findings were entirely disregarded by the President and the Board of Regents in their decision. This is distinctly not the case. M The committee's findings in the Phillips and Butterworth cases consisted of four
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.021 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".