MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021256102 · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.243

Ethnographic decision tree modeling: A research method for counseling psychology.

2005· article· en· W2021256102 on OpenAlex
Kirk A. Beck

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 Counseling Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEthnographyCounseling psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistAnthropologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes ethnographic decision tree modeling (EDTM; C. H. Gladwin, 1989) as a mixed method design appropriate for counseling psychology research. EDTM is introduced and located within a postpositivist research paradigm. Decision theory that informs EDTM is reviewed, and the 2 phases of EDTM are highlighted. The 1st phase, model building, is an inductive process consisting of a series of ethnographic interviews designed to describe and diagram the choices of decision makers. The 2nd phase, model validation, utilizes linear hypothesis testing borrowed from a quantitative research paradigm. During model validation, the group decision model is tested using a separate group of participants from the same population. Strengths and limitations of EDTM, and its potential applications in counseling psychology research, are emphasized.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.267 · 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