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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 1 - Planning the research process 1. What is your research question - and why? - Kathleen Armour, University of Birmingham, UK, and Doune Macdonald, University of Queensland, Australia 2. Research principles and practices: paving the research journey - Doune Macdonald and Louise McCuaig, University of Queensland, Australia 3. Positioning yourself as a researcher: four dimensions for self-reflection - Juan-Miguel Fernandez-Balboa, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain, and Nathan Brubaker, James Madison University, USA 4. What counts as 'good' research? - Stephen Silverman, Teachers College, Columbia University, USA, and Eve Bernstein, Queens College, City University of New York, USA Section 2 - Methodology: the thinking behind the methods 5. Thinking about research frameworks - Richard Tinning, University of Queensland, Australia, and Katie Fitzpatrick, University of Auckland, New Zealand 6. Conducting ethical research - Jan Wright and Gabrielle O'Flynn, University of Wollongong, Australia 7. Qualitative approaches - Peter Hastie, Auburn University, USA, and Peter Hay, University of Queensland, Australia 8. Quantitative approaches - Beverley Hale and Dudley Graham, University of Chichester, UK 9. Are mixed methods the natural approach to research? - Stephen Gorard and Kyriaki Makopoulou, University of Birmingham, UK 10. Listening to young people's voices in physical education and youth sport research - Mary O'Sullivan and Eimear Enright, University of Limerick, Ireland Section 3 - Selecting the most appropriate method(s) 11. Reviewing literature - Thomas J. Templin, Purdue University, USA, and Gemma Pearce, University of Birmingham, UK 12. Experimental research methods in physical education and sports - Leen Haerens and Isabel Tallir, University of Ghent, Belgium 13. Measurement of physical activity - Stewart G. Trost and Kelly Rice, Oregon State University, USA 14. Surveys - Hans Peter Brandl-Bredenbeck and Astrid Kampfe, University of Paderborn, Germany 15. Observational studies - Marie Ohman and Mikael Quennerstedt, Orebro University, Sweden 16. Case study research - Kathleen Armour and Mark Griffiths, University of Birmingham, UK 17. Interviews and focus groups - Catherine D. Ennis, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, USA, and Senlin Chen, Iowa State University, USA 18. Narrative research methods: where the art of storytelling meets the science of research Kathleen Armour, University of Birmingham, UK, and Hsin-heng Chen, Loughborough University, UK 19. Action research in physical education: cycles, not circles! - Anthony Rossi and Wah Kiat Tan, University of Queensland, Australia 20. Visual methods in coaching research: capturing everyday lives - Robyn Jones and Sofia Santos, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK Isabel Mesquita, Faculdade de Desporto, Porto, Portugal and David Gilbourne, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK 21. Grounded theory - Nicholas L. Holt and Camilla J. Knight, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, and Katherine A. Tamminen, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 22. Discourse analysis and the beginner researcher - Kathy Hall and Fiona C. Chambers, University College, Cork, Ireland Section 4 - Data analysis - consider it early! 23. Analysing qualitative data - Peter Hastie and Olga Glotova, Auburn University, USA 24. Analysing quantitative data - Beverley Hale and Alison Wakefield, University of Chichester, UK Section 5 - Communicating your research 25. Effective research writing - David Kirk and Ashley Casey, University of Bedfordshire, UK 26. The dissertation - Lisette Burrows, Fiona McLachlan and Lucy Spowart, University of Otago, New Zealand
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it