MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134246778 · doi:10.7202/900396ar

L’échantillonnage et le problème de la validité externe de la recherche en éducation

2009· article· fr· W2134246778 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Djavid Ajar, Clément Dassa, H. Gougeon

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les liens existant entre la théorie de l’échantillonnage et la validité externe des recherches en sciences humaines, et plus particulièrement en éducation, sont exposés. Une étude sur la nature et la qualité de la généralisation des conclusions présentées dans des thèses de doctorat et des mémoires de maîtrise en psychologie et en sciences de l’éducation de deux universités québécoises sert à illustrer les problèmes d’échantillonnage rencontrés en pratique. L’ampleur et l’importance des lacunes mises en évidence servent de toile de fond à quelques suggestions de correctifs.

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)0.658
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.851
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6580.851
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0080.037
Scholarly communication0.0230.024
Open science0.0080.014
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.855
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.208 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l éducationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207