MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005481032

Remarks on the Challenge Raised to Argumentation Practice by Conspiracy Discourses

2024· article· en· W7005481032 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLeiden Repository (Leiden University) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgumentativeArgumentation theoryDialecticDiscourse analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conspiracy discourse (CD) holders seem impervious to rational argumentation based on validated argumentative schemes (Keely, 1999). The hypothesis here is that practicing a minimal recognition of claims and values might be a way to open dialogue in some cases. Following a dialectic method (Rescher, 2009) and Cassam’s contribution (2021), I will get back to Lippmann’s theory to clarify a conceptual dissociation (in Perelman’s sense). The trucker convoy in Ottawa, Canada (2022) will serve as case study.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.039
Scholarly communication0.0140.022
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0190.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueLeiden Repository (Leiden University)Same topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207