MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022913092 · doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9919-0

On the choice of measures of reliability and validity in the content-analysis of texts

2013· article· en· W2022913092 on OpenAlexaff
Антон Олейник, Irina Popova, Svetlana Kirdina, Tatyana Shatalova

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality & Quantity · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Rhetorical questionInterpretation (philosophy)Reading comprehensionComplement (music)Reading (process)KappaComputer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Content (measure theory)PsychologyNatural language processingContent validityComprehensionLinguisticsStatisticsSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyMathematicsPsychometricsData miningPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.542
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.798
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5420.798
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0170.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0210.027
Open science0.0090.011
Research integrity0.0150.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.611
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.154 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations61
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueQuality & QuantitySame topicReliability and Agreement in MeasurementFrench-language works237,207