MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

User-Centered Internet Research

2004· book-chapter· en· W2477634630 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Bakardjieva, Andrew Feenber, Janis L. Goldie

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)The InternetPoliticsEngineering ethicsInternet researchResistance (ecology)Research ethicsPolitical scienceComputer sciencePsychologySociologyKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current model of research ethics assumes an investigator, who holds expert status and superior knowledge, and a subject in a passive role. This model is meeting increasing resistance from subjects on the Internet. A collaborative model that recognizes the contribution of both researcher and subject is necessary for both practical and ethical reasons. We argue in this chapter that the history of the ethics and politics of research offers insight into our present situation and its dilemmas.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.006

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207