Selecting and Writing Case Studies for Improving Human Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The case study method is generally used for enhancing higher level learning. However, it also has the potential for going beyond learning to help attain desired human performance outcomes. This article presents the case study method as a concept whose critical attributes are that it is a form of simulation with a clearly defined objective—analyze and solve job related problem — and that it contains complete, accurate and clear descriptions of the issues, events and characters. The major variable attributes are the nature of the case study purpose, length, level of detail, individual/group involvement and type of conclusion. Reasons for using the case study method to improve human performance are offered along with guidelines for creating a case. The article concludes with descriptions of different case study method types and formats as well as criteria for evaluating the quality/usability of cases that readers may either create themselves or select from existing sources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".