MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1652177449 · doi:10.19030/jbcs.v4i12.4821

Case Studies And How They Are Used

2008· article· en· W1652177449 on OpenAlexaff
John Parkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Case Studies (JBCS) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although case studies are widely used there are different opinions on what constitutes a case, and what the educational objectives are. In summarizing some of the theory underlying the writing and use of cases [e.g. Eisenbeis, 1994, Erskine et al, 1998, Gilbertson & Gilbertson, 1995], we come to the conclusion that the choice of appropriate cases is dependent on the contextual factors, in particular whether the case is to be used to enable student learning, or, alternatively, if it is to be used to assess student learning.

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)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.278
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.278
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0220.020
Science and technology studies0.0050.030
Scholarly communication0.0340.027
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.094 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business Case Studies (JBCS)Same topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207