MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391303341 · doi:10.32920/25105865

Reforming Critique: Critical Making as Method and Practice.

2024· preprint· en· W4391303341 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Monique Tschofen, Nataleah Hunter Young, Lai-Tze Fan, Daniel Browne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This chapter presents the work of four scholar-creators, who were involved in a roundtable on “Revisiting and Renewing Critique” at the 2017 CCLA conference at Ryerson. We discussed how our work at the boundaries of disciplines self-reflexively takes up, problematizes, and extends critical thinking through practice. Critical making, also described as research-creation or research-praxis, is a way of thinking-made-material. Critical makers construct arguments using the forms, materials, and techniques from the domains of carpenters, designers, filmmakers, painters, and digital artists, among many others. These crafted, wellformed arguments feed out of, as well as into, more traditional modes of scholarly inquiry.</p>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.375 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207