MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152757094 · doi:10.1177/1094428107300202

Deconstructing Scholarship

2007· article· en· W2152757094 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganizational Research Methods · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsStructuringVariety (cybernetics)Relevance (law)ScholarshipCraftCitationSelection (genetic algorithm)Tacit knowledgeComputer scienceCitation analysisKnowledge managementData scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsPsychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the variety of different ways in which citations contribute to scholarly writing is an important part of the tacit knowledge possessed by experienced researchers. There is, however, little published work to help novice researchers develop this aspect of their craft. To address this issue, we present a framework of citation usage derived from inductive analysis of a selection of published articles and emphasize its relevance for research methods topics. This framework provides a template for structuring citation usage in academic research and a useful developmental tool for novice researchers.

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)0.399
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.637
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3990.637
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0600.313
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.911
GPT teacher head0.791
Teacher spread0.120 · 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