MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043260281

‘Science’- of value to hazard & disaster challenges; 
\nan exposé on interdisciplinary research

2016· other· en· W7043260281 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchSPAce (Bath Spa University) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Futures contractValue (mathematics)Work (physics)Citizen journalismHazardResilience (materials science)Psychological resilienceOrder (exchange)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Indian Himalaya, ongoing, multi-disciplinary, tri-lateral (Canada, India, UK), participatory (light) research is exploring interconnected questions of mountain system process-hazard dynamics, community heritage-vulnerability- resilience conditions, and rapid development implications (e.g. HEP) in the context of international sustainable development and disaster risk reduction policy accords, in order to fashion a more sustainable future. Pursuing this hybridisation of themes has required large shifts across traditional intra/inter subject boundaries, and so many lessons have already been learned. This approach has without doubt been hugely beneficial in delivering an enhanced level of knowledge involving a range of non-academic organisations and communities speaking their local languages. Here we draw upon these research experiences, making the case that physical sciences are very much part of the effort to seek better understanding of and futures for the world, where a holistic understanding has to draw upon the in-depth approaches and outcomes of a range of disciplines. We seek to show the benefits of this approach to date, but equally to generate debate around a number of contentions; a challenge we should embrace together:
\n(1)\tCurrent thinking suggests that Interdisciplinarity has great potential to provide something greater than the sum of its parts. We suggest that this needs to be a genuine meeting of minds and a willingness to work together on the part of all the players. Hence we ask ‘interdisciplinarity for whom and using who’s methods?’ 
\n(2)\tIs this interdisciplinary endeavour merely following an in-vogue paradigm and being used as a vehicle of power for some parts of the interdisciplinary whole? Indeed disciplinarity seems to be negatively cast, being touted as a dirty word by some. But let’s not forget if we don’t develop discipline based knowledge, with parity, then we fail to populate cross-disciplinary endeavours with an improving knowledge and technique baseline, this will in due course stifle the progress of interdisciplinarity. Hence lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater! 
\n(3)\tEmployers delivering technical services do still seek depth of disciplinary knowledge, so we need to create degree programmes that deliver societally relevant depth and breadth- this calls for a mix of the old and the new, not just radicalism!
\n(4)\tThe language and approach of interdisciplinarity to date generates genuine discomfort in the scientific community- this we cannot ignore; together, we need to co-produce a better model of interdisciplinarity that fully embraces all of the disciplines represented in any project partnership. 
\nThese are not mindlessly provocative, anachronistic denials of the world; but instead genuinely open reflections of earth scientists/ geographers who do work in an already diverse discipline and more so across boundaries. We all have to talk, in common tongue, seeking to understand the array of contributions that can be brought into the mix, otherwise interdisciplinarity will develop within intrinsic bias/ reduced capacity and therefore fall short in optimising pathways to impact. 
\n
\nThis was a Dec 2016 presentation, which we re-discuss with a different multi-disciplinary audience

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesOpen science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0190.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.014

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.254 · 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