MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111628838 · doi:10.2307/4132319

Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review

2002· review· en· W2111628838 on OpenAlexaff
Jane Webster, Richard T. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueMIS Quarterly · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Engineering ethicsKnowledge managementFeature (linguistics)Management scienceData scienceSociologyComputer scienceBusinessEngineeringEpistemologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of prior, relevant literature is an essential feature of any academic project.An effective review creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge.It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.437
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7,129
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMIS QuarterlySame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207