The Observation and Experiment of Field dependence/Field Independence Based on R&T Users’ Behavioral of Information Searching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis the R&T users’ behavioral of information seeking based on the theory of field independence/field dependence and take experiments on the analysis. It is of great meaning to make research from the angle. Choose university students as example to take empirical datum analysis and. Key words: R&T Users, field dependence/field independence, information seeking, cognitive style, experiment Resume: Le present article vise a analyser, sur la base de la theorie de dependance de champ/independance de champ, le comportement de recherche d’information des utilisateurs R&T et a faire l’experimentation sur l’analyse. Il est de grande signification d’entreprendre les recherches sous cet angle. On choisit des etudiants universitaires comme exemples pour accomplir l’analyse des donnees empiriques. Mots-Cles: utilisateurs R&T, dependance de champ/independance de champ, recherche d’information, style cognitif, experimentation
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 | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".