MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189364426 · doi:10.36510/learnland.v4i2.401

Crystallization: Teacher Researchers Making Room for Creative Leaps in Data Analysis

2011· article· en· W2189364426 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruth Shagoury

Bibliographic record

VenueLEARNing Landscapes · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLEAPSStorytellingMetaphorReflection (computer programming)Data collectionField (mathematics)Data scienceComputer scienceSociologyArtLiteratureNarrativeSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author shares new approaches to data collection and analysis which encourage using "crystallization": an intriguing new method that has emerged in recent years as a kind of three-dimensional data analysis strategy that welcomes the new lens that artistic thinking can bring to conducting and writing research. Examples from teacher-researchers include ways to use storytelling, art, self-reflection, children’s books, metaphor, and imagination to expand the field of data collection and analysis.

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)0.326
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.414
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3260.414
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.053
Scholarly communication0.0250.027
Open science0.0060.036
Research integrity0.0060.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLEARNing LandscapesSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207