MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data provenance, metadata, and reflexivity: Comments on method

2014· article· en· W2057248275 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bruce Curtis

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityProvenanceMetadataOrder (exchange)Data scienceComputer scienceEmpirical researchEpistemologyInformation retrievalSociologyWorld Wide WebSocial sciencePhilosophyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers faced with large, routinely-generated record systems may think themselves compelled to choose between accepting their empirical materials as given in order to pursue research questions, or closely examining the provenance of their materials. I argue that researchers can employ a reflexive historical method that allows us to both address research questions with evidence, as well as to examine how the provenance of our sources shapes our research practice.
 
 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15572/ENCO2014.03

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)0.336
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.538
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3360.538
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0160.044
Scholarly communication0.0240.036
Open science0.0100.017
Research integrity0.0280.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicData Analysis and ArchivingFrench-language works237,207