MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235766595 · doi:10.18192/aporia.v1i1.3065

[no title]

2009· article· fr· W4235766595 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Nicholls

Bibliographic record

VenueAporia · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFoucault, Power, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemptationPostmodernismEpistemologyInterpretation (philosophy)SociologyKey (lock)AestheticsComputer sciencePhilosophyPsychologyLinguisticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an overview of the methodological approach taken in a recently completed Foucauldian discourse analysis of physiotherapy practice. In keeping with other approaches common to postmodern research this paper resists the temptation to define a proper or ‘correct’ interpretation of Foucault’s methodological oeuvre; preferring instead to apply a range of Foucauldian propositions to examples drawn directly from the thesis. In the paper I elucidate on the blended archaeological and genealogical approach I took and unpack some of the key imperatives, principles and rules I grappled with in completing the thesis.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.326 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAporiaSame topicFoucault, Power, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207