MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391223318 · doi:10.1177/27538699241228669

What is wise? A commentary on Streib’s “Wisdom and the Other”

2024· article· en· W4391223318 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Martin

Bibliographic record

VenuePossibility Studies & Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Wisdom” is considered to be an “essentially contested concept”. As such, wisdom resists precise definition and has been interpreted very differently across interpreters, historical times, and sociocultural contexts. Particular attention is given to Streib’s equation of wisdom and xenosophia. Xenosophia, as a pathos and openness to the alien other seems necessary for the kind of perspective taking and humility that Streib describes. However, it is insufficient by itself to constitute wisdom. As an essentially contested, ill-defined concept subject to historical and sociocultural change that is unpredictable, the value of wisdom lies in its status as an ideal toward which we might channel our nobler actions and attitudes to persevere in our never-ending struggles to achieve a human flourishing that includes all of us.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePossibility Studies & SocietySame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207