MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053535480 · doi:10.1080/13811110213119

Research Methods: A History of Some Important Strands

2002· article· en· W2053535480 on OpenAlexaff
John G. Benjafield

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Suicide Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)NaturalismWork (physics)EpistemologyPositivismPsychologyPhilosophyThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wilhelm Wundt's distinction between experimental methods appropriate for understanding simple processes and naturalistic methods appropriate for understanding complex processes is shown to be reflected throughout the history of research methods. Experimental methods are illustrated through the work of logical positivists, operationists and behaviorists like B.F. Skinner. Naturalistic methods are illustrated through the work of applied psychologists like Elton Mayo and clinicians like Kurt Goldstein. Wundt's distinction is also reflected in the contrasting approaches at statisticians like R.A. Fisher, whose work so influenced the experimental tradition, and Lee. J. Cronbach, whose work was central to the correlational tradition.

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)0.112
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1120.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.038
Scholarly communication0.0130.016
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0060.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.659
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.077 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Suicide ResearchSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207