MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6955357166 · doi:10.57974/re:visit_2023_2.12

Who Cares? – Caring in Literature: the Ambivalence of Caregivers in the French Novel between 1870 and 1945

2024· report· en· W6955357166 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueREVISIT: Humanities & Medicine in Dialogue · 2024
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbivalenceService (business)Qualitative researchMedical care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Who takes care of whom? And who assumes caregiving responsibilities or medical care under what (work) conditions for children, the sick, and old, dependent individuals – i.e., for those groups identified as particularly vulnerable in care ethics? The research project, ironically titled À votre service (At Your Service or Always at Your Service), funded by the Canadian CRSH/SSHRC, is based, among other things, on these care-related questions. As specified in the project's subtitle, its aim is to illuminate various aspects of caring for others/for oneself (self-care) from a historical perspective, using examples of fictional characters from French literature.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueREVISIT: Humanities & Medicine in DialogueSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207