MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1955858847 · doi:10.1080/13229400.2015.1023173

What can qualitative research contribute to work and family policy?

2015· article· en· W1955858847 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Brady

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Qualitative researchProject commissioningSociologyPublishingPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qualitative researchers interested in social policies around work and family face a puzzle. Key welfare to work, childcare and child support initiatives have in recent decades been based as much on...

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)0.540
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.723
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5400.723
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0170.015
Science and technology studies0.0180.049
Scholarly communication0.0400.077
Open science0.0120.029
Research integrity0.0190.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family StudiesSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207