MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386064550 · doi:10.1075/ds.33.09dol

Disability in dialogue

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386064550 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Dolmage

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue studies · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlossaryRedundancy (engineering)Value (mathematics)Computer scienceSociologyEpistemologyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter offers a hetero glossary that that gathers and redefines what has already been said in this collection in an attempt to push these ideas into further dialogue and towards change. In doing so, this afterword channels another value from within the disability rights movement: the idea of positive redundancy (access Smith 2013 ). That is, it is always good and useful to repeat ourselves, to offer clear and simplified definitions of what has already been said.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.003

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogue studiesSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207