MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396693432 · doi:10.11647/obp.0371.02

2. The Two Kens

2024· book-chapter· en· W4396693432 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Clossey

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Book Publishers · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We can better understand the fifteenth-century mind by delineating two different perspectives, here called "kens." The plain ken sees the world as a mess of particular things and human actions. This mess occur in an everyday spacetime, subject to certain rules: Every event can be located precisely with three spatial coordinates and a time stamp. There is no deep meaning beyond what we happen to project onto events. The plain ken sees in a coincidence merely a coincidence, random and accidental. In contrast, the deep ken allows for all these things the plain ken denies. There is subtle, deep, real meaning—and meaningful connections—beyond the accidental constructions by humans and the chance encounters of normal spacetime. There are subtle and powerful meaning, necessities, and connections, found especially in beauty and proportions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0160.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.004

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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 venueOpen Book PublishersSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207