MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246761746 · doi:10.33137/incite.1.28853

THE WALL

2018· article· en· W4246761746 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hassnaa Mohammed

Bibliographic record

Venuein cite journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownSquare (algebra)Government (linguistics)Social mediaEconomic JusticeState (computer science)Media studiesLawPolitical scienceSociologyCriminologyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On January 25, 2011, Egyptian youth protestors took to the squares and streets in all the major cities of Egypt, asking for “bread, freedom, and social justice.” A few days after, when marches across Egypt ballooned, the protesting youth felt empowered to topple the oppressive Mubarak regime that had lasted for close to 30 years. In a collective effort, they gushed into Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo, and the streets in its vicinity, to ensure that their needs were known and to demand that they be met. The subsequent series of events included the first fair election in the modern history of Egypt, followed by the military coup. Throughout these events, street art and social media became the main two mediums of public expression and news sharing. The walls of the streets surrounding Tahrir Square were very dynamic, changing with every new incident to communicate the tragedies that the state media refused to circulate. One of the walls, a wall on the street leading to Muhammed Mahmoud Street, was particularly interactive. This poem addresses the resistance of the inspired youth protestors against the government before and after the military coup.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2320.076

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuein cite journalSame topicPublic Spaces through ArtFrench-language works237,207