MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969543834 · doi:10.1177/1525822x11408513

How to Generate Personal Networks: Issues and Tools for a Sociological Perspective

2011· article· en· W1969543834 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueField Methods · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Perspective (graphical)Construct (python library)SociologyRelevance (law)Computer scienceData scienceSociological imaginationGenerator (circuit theory)Resource (disambiguation)EpistemologyManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate on the limits and relevance of the different name generators comes with the development of social network studies. The core questions are: What are they supposed to construct? For what research question? Some procedures tend to choose a precise target with a unique name generator; others prefer to use a series of name generators. The authors discuss here some specificities and advantages of these methods for ego-centered networks. The authors then present the ‘‘contextual’’ name generator, which was developed in longitudinal qualitative panel studies in France and Québec. This tool gives access to a great variety of information focused on sociological questions. Its original design differentiates two complementary stages to distinguish the global contexts-based network from specific resource-based networks. This tool remains flexible and may be adapted to different topics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.180 · 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