MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319840293 · doi:10.1080/07256868.2023.2166027

Side-by-Sidedness: A Conceptual Rethinking of Post-Peace Agreement Encounter

2023· article· en· W4319840293 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Lepp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intercultural Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyClubGreat RiftIdentity (music)Space (punctuation)SociologyInclusion (mineral)NarrativeAestheticsGender studiesArtPhilosophyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between the poles of conflict and reconciliation are the complex and simple interactions of the everyday. This article introduces the conceptual development of ‘side-by-sidedness’ – a form of ‘lightened encounter’ that is civilly inattentive to differences and divisions, thus contributing to improved relationships between individuals in violent protracted conflict. Emerging from a case study centred on the supporters of the Belfast Giants ice hockey club, this concept is developed around shifts in identity, encounter and space that occur through the willingness to sit side-by-side across historical divisions at ice hockey games without a necessary willingness to live side-by-side the person in the seat next to you. The case study is utilised as an unorthodox meeting point – the ice hockey arena of Northern Ireland sits outside the disputed histories in the region and yet offers a banality in the inclusion of the ‘other’. Side-by-sidedness thus lies between the narratives and imagery of a divided past and that of a reconciled, hand-in-hand future, instead identifying the willingness to share space as a means of ‘getting on with it’ in everyday Belfast.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0220.130
Scholarly communication0.0290.040
Open science0.0050.022
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intercultural StudiesSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207