MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386157145 · doi:10.18432/ari29727

It's All In the Details

2023· article· en· W4386157145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helen Grimmett

Bibliographic record

VenueArt/Research International A Transdisciplinary Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicContemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Key (lock)ClubComputer scienceLiteratureArtLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patricia Leavy’s Re/Invention: Methods of Social Fiction presents a highly readable how-to guide to writing social fiction as an accessible and impactful form of research inquiry. Providing extensive background information on the development and purposes of the genre and then discussing examples from her own social fiction novels, Leavy not only teaches readers how to go about writing social fiction but also explains why this is a worthwhile thing to do. This book review creatively puts into practice what I have learnt through reading Re/Invention. Through a fictional recounting of a book club discussion about Leavy’s work, both the form and content of this review illuminate many of the key points, tips, and techniques on offer in this highly recommended primer

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 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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.446
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.106 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArt/Research International A Transdisciplinary JournalSame topicContemporary Sociological Theory and PracticeFrench-language works237,207