MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386714593 · doi:10.14307/jfcs115.3.7

Professional Accountability via Professional Imperatives

2023· article· en· W4386714593 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family & Consumer Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture, Design, and Social History
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityIdeologyFamily and consumer sciencePublic relationsSociologyFood insecurityPolitical sciencePublic administrationLawPsychologyFood securityAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing practical, perennial problems with no discernible solutions (e.g., income insecurity, food insecurity, housing insecurity, health inequality, unsustainability) generates moral fallout–people could be harmed. As a profession, family and consumer sciences/home economics mandates that its practitioners hold deep obligations to the public they serve. Thus, morally- bound practice cannot go unchecked. Family and consumer sciences (FCS) professionals can bolster their professional accountability if they embrace eight professional imperatives, which range from the abstract and the theoretical to the concrete. These include being philosophically grounded, ethically compelled, morally obligated, values oriented, ideologically aware, theoretically mature, intellectually savvy, and competent and skilled. When embraced, these imperatives will better ensure professional accountability by FCS practitioners.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.250 · 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