MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132917189

The Brain Complex: Indeterminacy in a neuroscience laboratory

2021· dissertation· W7132917189 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Johanna Pokorny

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Education, Victoria University of WellingtonUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsIndeterminacy (philosophy)ReductionismFocus (optics)Process (computing)Meaning (existential)EthnographyScientismTerm (time)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation is an ethnographic study of how notions of the human and scientific practices in a neuroscience laboratory transform under the contemporary condition of complexity. I focus on a group of researchers working in a neuroscience laboratory in Ottawa, Canada, and who have close ties with researchers in China and Taiwan. Rejecting especially deterministic and reductionist approaches, these researchers take up a notion of the human brain—the “most complex” scientific object, that is embodied, embedded in the surrounds, and emplaced in time, but also active on its own, and thus what they see as a living brain, an especially lively and active one. Captivated by the lively activity of the brain, the scientists bring dynamic, temporalized, noisy, and processual matters and methods into their scientific practices of imaging, experimenting, measuring, and modelling brains, what I term the brain complex. With the brain complex, the scientists revision the brain less as a thing, and more as a verb, a process or a doing, and captured in the term ‘activity’ that was the focus of study and materialized through dynamic interactivity. This dissertation argues that, with this revision, the scientists’ efforts to study the lively brain involve incorporating indeterminacy in their scientific practices and doing so challenges notions of science as reductive, deterministic and as a fixed practice itself, studying static scientific objects with stabilized technical apparatuses. Indeterminacy in practice instead acknowledges the change and transformation of this science, as well as the complex anthropological notions with which the brain is conjoined, namely the human, the body, and life. By following how scientific practices take up indeterminacy in this neuroscience laboratory, this dissertation challenges taken for granted understandings of the neuroscientific human as not just fixed but also dynamic, and, even further, how this dynamic human, still latent in anthropology as well, can (re)produce an uneven politics of knowledge.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0380.140
Scholarly communication0.0200.021
Open science0.0030.019
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.332 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsFrench-language works237,207