MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496904405 · doi:10.1002/meet.2014.14505101034

Human rights researchers’ data analysis and management practices

2014· article· en· W1496904405 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersJoseph Rowntree Foundation
KeywordsSoftwareHuman rightsKnowledge managementQualitative analysisBest practiceData scienceQualitative propertyData managementData analysisComputer scienceQualitative researchPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyData miningSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The impetus to assist human rights researchers in data analysis is stronger than ever; however, little is known in the literature on human rights researchers’ practices in collecting, managing, and analyzing their research data. In an attempt to address this gap, we interviewed human rights researchers and conducted an online questionnaire to understand the characteristics of the data they analyze, as well as their data analysis and management practices, such as their experiences with data analysis software programs. We also explored their expectations with respect to a qualitative data analysis (QDA) software program.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.335 · 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