MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245926017 · doi:10.18192/cjcs.vi7.4294

Acknowledgments

2019· article· en· W4245926017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David LaRocca

Bibliographic record

VenueConversations The Journal of Cavellian Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapstoneContext (archaeology)EpistemologySociologyComputer scienceHistoryPhilosophyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thanking well is difficult work. And only someone who has attempted to convey thanks will know of the adversity one finds in trying to find (one’s own?) words of thanks. In an academic or we might say more broadly, bibliophilic context, the name we give to that moment of expressed and explicit (which is to say sanctioned) thanks is (the) Acknowledgments. The Cavellian resonances and overlaps of significance for this capitalized, capstone forum will stand out in high relief, even at first glance. But it is to the deep relationships between what an understanding of the Cavellian concept (or conception or even better, re-conception) of acknowledgment might (or must) betoken about the genre we call Acknowledgments that I turn to in what follows.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConversations The Journal of Cavellian StudiesSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207