MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1912834704 · doi:10.33524/cjar.v16i1.181

Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). The Sage encyclopedia of action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

2015· article· en· W1912834704 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Trudie Aberdeen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Action Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncyclopediaAction researchParticipatory action researchMillerAction (physics)SociologyAgency (philosophy)Library scienceSocial scienceAnthropologyPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sage encyclopedia of action research is a two-volume series of entries about action research which has been compiled by a team of editors and specialists in different areas of action research. The specializations of the editors include general action research (Greenwood), organization development (Coughlan, Dick), community-based action research (Brydon-Miller, Flicker, Hall), organizational behaviour (Friedman), action-research as meta-methodology (Sankaran), agency and activism (Gaya), participatory action research (Guhathakurta, Jaitli, Tandon), and educational action research (Zhao). They sought entries from 200 researchers in the field. The topics covered are also extensive and include the following: biographies of well-respected action researchers, concepts, epistemologies, ethics, goals, methods, methodologies, organizations and movements, philosophical underpinnings, settings, skills, spirituality, theories, and tools.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.011

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 head0.538
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.040 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Action ResearchSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207