MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411088532 · doi:10.1080/13698230.2025.2512277

Reply to critics

2025· article· en· W4411088532 on OpenAlexaff
Patti Tamara Lenard

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsPhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this reply to critics, Patti Tamara Lenard engages with interlocutors of her Democracy and Exclusion, engaging with three themes that they raised collectively: the parameters of contextual methodology in adjudicating disputes around the admission and exclusion of migrants; whether residence (and accompanying subjection) can or should ground citizenship; and whether democratic states can or should exclude illiberal migrants, as one way to protect resettling LGBTQ+ refugees.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.221
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.221
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.031
Scholarly communication0.0190.016
Open science0.0080.010
Research integrity0.0910.138
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.370 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Review of International Social and Political PhilosophySame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207