MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124709009 · doi:10.1177/0739456x13513614

Measuring and Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Plan Quality Evaluation Research

2014· article· en· W2124709009 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning Education and Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Plan (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)CriticismMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceSubject (documents)Management scienceRelation (database)Risk analysis (engineering)Data miningMedicineEngineeringPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plan quality evaluation researchers typically evaluate plans in relation to whether they contain certain desirable features. Best practice dictates that plans be evaluated by at least two readers and that researchers report a measure of the extent to which the readers agree on whether the plans contain the desirable features. Established practice for assessing this agreement has been subject to criticism. We summarize this criticism, discuss an alternative approach to assessing agreement, and provide recommendations for plan quality evaluation researchers to follow to improve the quality of their data and the manner in which they assess and report that quality.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.762
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.265 · 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