MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405866040 · doi:10.58544/imsj.v2i1.9247

Book Review: a Mad Turn: anti-methods of Mad Studies

2024· article· en· W4405866040 on OpenAlexaff
Annelies McEvoy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Mad Studies Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurn (biochemistry)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

a Mad Turn makes a subversive, evocative, and wonderfully weird contribution to the field of Mad Studies. The collected authors outline a Mad anti-methodology grounded in Mad ways of knowing, being, and doing, while imagining futures and possibilities for Mad scholars. Playful, mischievous writing and formatting styles embody Mad ways of knowing, being, and doing. The book primarily explores Mad identity integration and development. Autoethnographic and poetic narratives explore the unique challenges faced by Mad-identified academics, practitioners, educators, and other people.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.671
Teacher spread0.382 · 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
GenreReview

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 venueInternational Mad Studies JournalSame topicQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207