MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392053162 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v33i1.1115

Writing About Writing: Reading Academia Anew

2024· article· en· W4392053162 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Trevor Norris

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)LiteratureVisual artsSociologyLinguisticsArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the inauguration of the first European universities in the medieval era, at Bologna in 1088 and Oxford in 1096, and before that, al-Qarawiyyin in 859 in Fez, Morocco, Nalanda University in 5th century India, and Taixue University in China in 156, universities have been places of publishing, writing, and disseminating scholarly ideas. Socrates, who himself wrote nothing, worried in 400 B.C.E. that writing would weaken the mind, promote forgetfulness (Ong, 2002), and allow for the pretention of knowledge rather than the real thing, “the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom” (Plato, 370 B.C.E./1901,Phaedrus, section 275a).

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.038
Scholarly communication0.0300.033
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207