MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378603771 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2022.0029

Dialogic Forms in Freethought Periodicals: Free Discussion and Open Debate

2022· article· en· W4378603771 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clare Stainthorp

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialogicFaithPolitical radicalismSociologyEpistemologyGender studiesLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STAINTHORPNineteenth-century atheists, agnostics, and secularists were committed to the pursuit of truth via reason and viewed debate to be an ideal form through which to further their cause.As Agnosco, a regular contributor to the Secular Review, wrote in 1890: "He must study both sides of every debateable question.It is only by examining both sides that the truth can be discovered." 1 Freethinkers such as George Jacob Holyoake considered open debate to be at the heart of their movement.His four "rights of Secularism" each address a different facet of intellectual freedom:1.The right to Think for one's self, which most Christians now admit, at least in theory.2. The right to Differ, without which the right to think is nothing worth.3. The right to Assert difference of opinion, without which the right to differ is of no practical use.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.025
Scholarly communication0.0180.016
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207