The QUIPPED Project: Exploring Relevance and Rigor of Action Research Using Established Principles and Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is the last in a series of three manuscripts published in the TQR journal over the past few years. This work is part of a larger program of research that has been carried out by a team of researchers detailing various aspects of a three year action research project carried out from 2005 and 2008. This particular paper addresses issues of quality in action research by critiquing our research against five interdependent principles and criteria raised in the literature specifically by Davison, Martinson and Kock which was published in 2004. Our action research project aimed to facilitate interprofessional education for health care learners in the Faculty of Health Sciences at a Canadian University.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.719 | 0.760 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".