MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070736469 · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.03.001

Rating versus ranking: What is the best way to reduce response and language bias in cross-national research?

2009· article· en· W2070736469 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Wil Harzing, Joyce Baldueza, Wilhelm Barner-Rаsmussen, Cordula Barzantny, Anne Canabal, Anabella Dávila, Álvaro Espejo, Rita Ferreira, Axèle Giroud, Kathrin Koester, Yung-Kuei Liang, Audra I. Mockaitis, Michael Morley, Barbara Myloni, Joseph O. T. Odusanya, Sharon L. O’Sullivan, Ananda Kumar Palaniappan, Paulo Prochno, Srabani Roy Choudhury, Ayse Saka‐Helmhout, Sununta Siengthai, Linda Viswat, Ayda Uzunçarşılı Soydaş, Lena Zander

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Likert scaleRank (graph theory)PsychologyMultinational corporationPoint (geometry)Rating scaleSelection biasEconometricsSocial psychologyComputer scienceApplied psychologyStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEconomics

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)0.437
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.651
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4370.651
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.357
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations159
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ReviewSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207