MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969019199 · doi:10.1057/jit.2015.11

Avoiding Methodological Overdose: A Declaration for Independent Ends

2015· article· en· W1969019199 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationInformation systems securityStrategic information systemSoft systems methodologyComputer scienceInformation systemComputer securityManagement information systemsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The systematic literature review (SLR) increases the grounding of new research through the disciplined incorporation of existing research. As an information systems (IS) discipline, it would seem necessary and productive to structure our practices in such a clear and explicit way through SLR. In doing so, we would emulate the methods used in other respectable disciplines such as medicine and other evidence-based fields. Furthermore, our student disciples to the discipline would be able to follow a codified process in conducting literature reviews. Having a clearly delineated literature review process that is repeatable, unbiased, accountable, and transparent appears beyond critique.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.242 · 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