Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is anchored in a concern that too great a focus on the limits to academic freedom risks overlooking its origins and dependence upon freedom of expression writ large. We ignore at our peril the crucial importance of the broader right of freedom of expression as fundamental to academic freedom. It is not only in protecting the intramural and extramural rights of academic speech that a robust defense of freedom of expression is necessary. Even in the realm of strictly disciplinary work this is critical. For to mitigate the risk of creating our own "prescribed doctrines" in the form of disciplinary norms requires the broadest respect for dissent on the part of individual academics. Moreover, preserving the free exercise of the core functions of teaching and research demands the vigorous defense of freedom of expression in the external world governed by the public authorities. Finally, any restrictions on free expression in the extramural or intramural realms, will lead inevitably to professorial self-censorship in the work of teaching and research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".