MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984757552 · doi:10.1145/1390673.1390677

Thar's gold in them thar constructs

2008· article· en· W1984757552 on OpenAlexaff
Henri Barki

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationConstruct (python library)Data scienceComputer scienceManagement scienceEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conceptualization and measurement of constructs provide many opportunities for contributing to information systems research and practice by providing a better understanding and explanation of interesting and important phenomena. To assist researchers in such endeavors, this paper describes four approaches to construct conceptualization and illustrates them with examples from past research. The paper also suggests directions for future research by identifying examples of constructs that stand to benefit from the application of the four approaches.

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)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.370
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

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
GenreOther

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

Citations41
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information SystemsSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207