Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, I was informed by a member of the academy that Action Research, as a technique, really didn’t exist in a methodological sense. Instead, it was this person’s impression that the loose term was too informal in its approach and seldom identified any underpinnings of its research. From what she could see, it was not really quantitative because it was not “truth-seeking”, but neither should it be considered qualitative because it was not even “perspective-seeking”. Rather, she believed that it should be seen more as professional development, in that it offered a good pretext to free up teachers’ and other “practitioners’” time to learn more about their classes. She then brought her thesis to a triumphant conclusion - however justifiable, action research could not be placed in a category of “scholarly” research.
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 | 0.203 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.246 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.043 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".