MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210436334 · doi:10.4324/9781003261681-2

Why Do We Need Theories?

2022· book-chapter· en· W4210436334 on OpenAlex
Doris Ash

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicScience and Climate Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter reviews the core elements of CHAT. Sociocultural theories emphasizing collaborative communication and mediation with tools of all kinds, created first by Vygotsky, expanded to include the collective by Leon’tev and modified by Engeström as modern CHAT, taken together are the theoretical foundation for activity systems thinking. The analysis is done in the context of a real-world example involving the Exxon oil spill in Valdez, Canada. We relate CHAT analyses to actual museum day-to-day decision-making and, also, to the topics addressed in the ensuing chapters. We also discuss the structure agency dialectic basic principles, as well as the basics of neoliberal and othering/deficit ideologies, which are critiqued. This foundation sets the stage for looking at the role contradictions to set the stage for reculturing and expansive learning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4490.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScience and Climate StudiesFrench-language works237,207