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 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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.069
Scholarly communication0.0280.039
Open science0.0050.014
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.876
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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