MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155811669 · doi:10.1136/eb-2014-101738

The science and art of theoretical location

2014· editorial· en· W2155811669 on OpenAlex
Sally Thorne

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionConversationEpistemologySociologyContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchOrder (exchange)Engineering ethicsSocial sciencePhilosophyEngineeringCommunicationHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Convention dictates that qualitative nursing inquiries ought to be firmly positioned within a theoretical frame-work.1 The rationale for this convention derives from an understanding of general science, wherein observations must be sequentially aligned with prior observations along stepwise theoretical lines in order to credibly con-tribute to the discovery of new truths. Qualitative methods primarily came to us from the social sciences, whose intellectual projects were oriented around theoris-ing rather than truth discovery per se. However, in the social science context, each new study did have to signal which ongoing theoretical conversation it was intending to join. So in adapting qualitative technique to the business of knowledge-building in nursing, we absorbed the idea that a study must be positioned

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.378 · 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