Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through a deconstructive reading of texts on qualitative method and its contrast with quantitative method and through information needs studies regarding specific populations of women this paper concludes that the focus on method should not drive research. Rather, the ontological and epistemological stances of researchers assessed on a spectrum from subjective to objective are more indicative of the perspectives represented in library and information science research.Avec un étude déconstructif des textes sur des méthodes qualitatives et ses contrastes avec des méthodes quantitatives et avec l'étude des besoins informatiques à l'égard des populations spécifiques de femmes cette document conclut que le focus sur les méthodes utilisées ne devrait pas motiver la recherche. Au lieu, les positions ontologiques et épistemologiques des chercheurs évaluées sur une gamme du subjectif à l'objectif sont plus indicatives des perspectives représentées dans la domaine de la bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information.
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 | 0.329 | 0.361 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".