MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401276261 · doi:10.1177/13563890241265859

Post-truth and pathways for evaluators

2024· article· en· W4401276261 on OpenAlex
Astrid Brousselle

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

VenueEvaluation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisinformationTransformative learningSkepticismPost truthPoliticsPhenomenonNarrativeFake newsSociologyPremisePolitical sciencePublic relationsEpistemologySocial mediaLawMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-truth relates to the combination of tactics of influence and opinion manipulation orchestrated by powerful economic and political interests, principally targeting initiatives or ideas with a transformative potential. Post-truth strategies express themselves in multiple tactics, which happen synchronously at varied levels and through different channels. Scientifically valid information is forced to compete with narratives which are designed to create doubt or skepticism. Disinformation weakens efforts to implement policies intended to support transformative goals. The distortion, discrediting, or ignoring of scientific evidence has become a threat to our societies. This article starts by defining the post-truth phenomenon, first discussing the roots, tactics, and contextual conditions supporting its expansion. Then it explores what stance evaluators can adopt to work in this new era where people are polarized and disinformation is widespread. This article aims to raise awareness of this disruptive phenomenon and brings evaluators together to consider promising practices.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.348 · 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