MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597876521 · doi:10.1002/9781119959847.ch1

“It Looks Great but How do I know if it Fits?”: An Introduction to Meta‐Synthesis Research

2011· other· en· W1597876521 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Paterson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceQualitative researchManagement scienceEpistemologyData scienceEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineeringArtificial intelligenceSocial sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following chapter is intended both as an introduction to the book and as a way of making sense of the multiple epistemological, theoretical, and methodological interpretations of qualitative evidence synthesis that are apparent in the synthesis methods that exist today. The chapter provides a general overview of the history and current state-of-the-art of qualitative evidence synthesis. It also includes a general overview of qualitative evidence synthesis methods and a framework to assist researchers in the selection of a synthesis method.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.006

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations76
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational and Text Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207