Trends in Canadian Sociology Master's Theses in Relation to Research Ethics Review, 1995–2004
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THIS PAPER EXAMINES TRENDS IN CANADIAN Master's theses in sociology, 1995-2004, in the course the implementation of Canada's national research-ethics guidelines (2001), using data available from ProQuest Dissertations. While there has been no decline in the number of theses completed during this period, nearly 1/4 fewer theses now involve research participants. The proportion of theses using quantitative methods shows decline; theses using qualitative methods, however, have increased significantly over time. A closer inspection qualitative theses shows an impressive increase in the proportion of theses using interviews, while the decrease in theses using field work is even more dramatic, from 40% to 5%. The decrease of theses involving field work is particularly alarming for a significant segment of sociology that must derive its material mainly from field work. Data drawn from a larger study supplement the findings in this article.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
| gpt | BibliometricsMetaresearch Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.419 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it