MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Practices from Everyday Life

2017· book· en· W4236136029 on OpenAlex

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

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerosityGrassrootsForgivenessCompassionNegotiationDiversity (politics)HumilityAction (physics)Social psychologySociologyGroup cohesivenessPolitical sciencePsychologyGender studiesSocial scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter assesses specific values and strategies key to the production of deep equality. Within a broad framework in which cooperation, similarity, and contaminated diversity define the interactions that typify deep equality, individuals and groups deploy a number of values or beliefs. These values include respect, generosity, neighbourliness, forgiveness, caring and protectiveness, compassion and even love, and they are worked out and manifested through language, gesture, navigation and negotiation, and through the use of humour and acts of humility, and forgiveness. The chapter also considers the circulation of practices of deep equality. Three examples of group-initiated action that exemplify deep equality are discussed: the ‘Cook and Share a Pot of Curry Day’, a grassroots led initiative in Singapore; the protest actions of a Quebec boys’ soccer team in reaction to an attempt to ban turban-wearing Sikhs from the soccer field in 2013; and the global Human Library Project.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.221 · 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