The problem is not anonymity, but genocide; Reply to Babish’s “Response to the AnonymOT Collective”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Babish’s response to our commentary, Occupational Therapists Speaking for Justice and Human Rights: From Complicit Silencing to Collective Resistance (AnonymOT Collective, 2024), contests the anonymity chosen by its authors, and contends that there is a paradox in anonymity in the context of justice. A “paradox” is something that appears self-contradictory but that may hold deeper truth. While appearing contradictory, the fact that anonymity can be used to serve justice could thus hold a certain truth. Our intentions in responding to Babish are to assert that justice can be advanced without centring one’s own identity, to assert our belief in the value of a diversity of tactics in the fight against oppression and injustice, and to affirm our commitment to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and with others who are similarly committed. Thus, we explicitly stand with Babish and their community in our intention – even if we may disagree on elements of praxis. We hope our reply is seen as complementary to, and supportive of his call to amplify the voices of Palestinians.
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 | 0.012 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.049 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".