MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131951821 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v53i2.55264

Action Research: A Spiral Inquiry for Valid and Useful Knowledge

2007· article· en· W2131951821 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alireza Moghaddam

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEducational researchAction researchAction (physics)Research methodologySpiral (railway)Mathematics educationSociologyMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses methodological and philosophical issues linked to action research. The concepts of subjectivity and objectivity—potential sources of bias that mislead researchers in dealing with these concepts—and how to cope with them are discussed. Controversial issues of truth in positivism, postpositivism, and other schools of philosophy are considered. Finally, the article touches on validity criteria, validity types, and how to grapple with validity in action research.

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 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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.876
GPT teacher head0.727
Teacher spread0.148 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207