MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W794024954 · doi:10.31542/j.muse.160

The Sinful University?

2014· article· en· W794024954 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daniel James Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueMacEwan University Student eJournal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCatholicism and Religious Studies
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionUniversity educationEpistemologyFunction (biology)SociologyHigher educationLawPolitical sciencePhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a difference between doing something well and doing something good. And there is a difference between failing to do something well, and failing to do something good. In this paper, I assess our contemporary University in the latter sense of failure. While the University can be ineffective, or fail to function well, there is more at stake if the University, as an institution, is in conflict with nature. That is, it is one thing for the University to be ineffective in its means, but here I will pose the question: is the contemporary University sinful? Using Josef Pieper's elucidation of moral failure and John Henry Newman's analysis of the proper ends of University education, I defend the thesis that because the aim of our contemporary University seems to come in conflict with the goal of nature as a whole, it may be understood as sinful.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacEwan University Student eJournalSame topicCatholicism and Religious StudiesFrench-language works237,207