MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251286156 · doi:10.1057/9781137460455_6

Troubling Method

2015· book-chapter· en· W4251286156 on OpenAlexaff
Rita A. Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHannah Arendt's Political Philosophy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExistentialismPhenomenology (philosophy)EpistemologyQualitative researchSociologyPsychologyAestheticsSocial psychologySocial sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last chapter, I suggested that authenticity requires not just an internal sense of purpose, but also responsiveness towards others. Such a responsive orientation necessitates a willingness to think from different perspectives so as to enrich one’s understanding. Arendt described this pursuit as ‘thinking without a bannister’, an activity that requires a person to move beyond the constraints of their own assumptions. As part of my attempt to ‘think without a bannister’, and enhance my understanding of the connections among gender, authenticity and leadership, I conducted a qualitative study. The purpose of this chapter is to explore my qualitative approach, which is in the tradition of existential, hermeneutic phenomenology, coupled with a feminist orientation. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1310.024

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicHannah Arendt's Political PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207