Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anyone who has read my editorials in the past has seen my rather terse responses to those who question Action Research’s place in the span of research methodologies. However, I am just as frequently approached by scholars who ask me what I think sets Action Research apart from other types of inquiry in general. Some are quite the jokesters, musing whether we stand at our desks doing deep knee-bends and arm curls as we analyze our findings. More frequently, questioners are truly curious as to the details of what Action Researchers actually do, and why they are considered pseudo-scholars by some segments of the Academy. In the past, I have argued that methodology is not what really sets it apart from any other type of research. The methods it uses are those that are tied to the questions being asked and the answers being sought. Now, I will argue that what really differentiates Action Research from any other form is the scope of questioning and the intended utilization of the study’s results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.019 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".