MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284242679 · doi:10.21810/strm.v2i1.34

The Line Between Methodology and Praxis

2009· article· en· W2284242679 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrea C. Fields

Bibliographic record

VenueStream Interdisciplinary Journal of Communication · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicOral History, Memory, Narrative Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisBridge (graph theory)EpistemologySociologyPsychologyPhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I would like to begin by disclosing that the overall purpose I have ventured to extend in the writing of my report has been to address the question: How do we, as researchers, as scholars, as students, as teachers, and perhaps also then feasibly as activists, effectively bridge the gap between theory, methodology, and praxis? This report contains both epistemological and methodological discussions, examining potential strengths and problematic uses of oral history as an alternative to traditional empirical social science research.

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)0.214
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.221
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2140.221
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.105
Scholarly communication0.0320.028
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0060.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStream Interdisciplinary Journal of CommunicationSame topicOral History, Memory, Narrative AnalysisFrench-language works237,207