MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256304835 · doi:10.17118/11143/15560

Circula : revue d'idéologies linguistiques. No 8, Ideologías en obras sobre la lengua española (ss. XV-XX)

2018· paratext· es· W4256304835 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueCircula · 2018
Typeparatext
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Definir el concepto de ideologa de forma completa y abarcadora a la par que satisfactoria plantea un variado compendio de dificultades. La mayora de las propuestas examinadas sostiene que es, en primera instancia, un conjunto de ideas, el cual, seguidamente, se afina segn el rea de estudio. Sin embargo, este punto de partida, ms que ofrecer una solucin, remite a nuevas preguntas, empezando por qu es una idea?: cualquier producto mental: una opinin, una creencia, un inters, una motivacin, una ocurrencia...? De ser as, las ideas seran equiparables si se asocian a un individuo, a una comunidad, a una institucin o a una poca? Cada una de estas entidades genera y exterioriza la ideologa de la misma manera? Cules y cuntas ideas conforman una ideologa? Bajo esta inconclusa miscelnea, la totalidad ideolgica adquiere una complejidad y un dinamismo inconmensurables.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.016

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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