MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225491748 · doi:10.17104/1863-8937-2022-1-3

Zum Thema

2022· article· de· W4225491748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Schönpflug

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Ideengeschichte · 2022
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConsumer behavior in food and health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Im September 2021 ging die Meldung über die Nachrichtenticker, dass auf Anordnung einer Schulbehörde in Ontario/Canada knapp fünftausend Bücher dem Feuer zugeführt worden waren – darunter berühmte Werke wie Tintin in Amerika, Asterix in Amerika sowie drei Bände von Lucky Luke. Ziel der Aktion sei die Aussöhnung mit den amerikanischen Ureinwohnern gewesen, die in herabwürdigender Weise dargestellt worden seien. Ist es wieder so weit? Müssen wir uns Sorgen um die Freiheit des gedruckten Wortes machen? Und zwar keineswegs nur in der wachsenden Zahl von Ländern der Welt, in denen autoritäre Regime Wissen und Meinungen zu kontrollieren suchen, sondern auch inmitten der westlichen Zivilisation?

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5450.328

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.358
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
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für IdeengeschichteSame topicConsumer behavior in food and healthFrench-language works237,207