MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386253954 · doi:10.1111/tesg.12587

What Do ‘We’ Do With ‘Them’?: A Response

2023· article· en· W4386253954 on OpenAlexaff
Kath Browne, Catherine J. Nash

Bibliographic record

VenueTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersEuropean Research Council
KeywordsOpposition (politics)EpistemologyDiversity (politics)Work (physics)SociologyPower (physics)Political sciencePolitical economyLawPoliticsPhilosophyAnthropologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This response discusses the commentaries provided by Sarah hall and Jason Luger. It outlines future work regrading diversity amongst Beyond Opposition participants; the dangers of doing this work; the multiplicities and shifting power relations that the paper reveals and what these might imply more broadly. We note that 'the struggle continues' and considerations of defence/attack are one way of engaging this, there may be others.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0380.057
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 venueTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale GeografieSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207