MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7077982931

Care Ethics in Action: Looking Back at a Conference about Art, Care, and Aesthetics

2025· other· nl· W7077982931 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languagenl
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthics of carePerspective (graphical)Work (physics)Subject (documents)Information ethics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eind januari 2025 vond het derde internationale congres van het Care Ethics Research Consortium (CERC) plaats onder de titel “Care, Aesthetics, and Repair.” Georganiseerd door de leerstoelgroep Zorgethiek van de Universiteit voor Humanistiek in samenwerking met haar internationale partners, bracht het congres meer dan 500 deelnemers samen. Van Canada tot Zuid-Korea, van Zuid-Afrika tot Nieuw-Zeeland, van Nederland tot Japan; zorg en esthetiek bleken een wereldwijd gedeeld thema. Het congres stelde een fundamentele vraag centraal: wat gebeurt er als we zorg zien als een kunstvorm en kunst als een manier van zorgen?

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.018
Scholarly communication0.0240.019
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0150.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.008

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreOther

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 topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→