MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525239347 · doi:10.33524/cjar.v17i2.265

Sheri R. Klein (Ed.). (2012). Action research methods: Plain and simple. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

2016· article· en· W2525239347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonella Cortese

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Action Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction researchQualitative researchAction (physics)Simple (philosophy)SociologyMathematics educationMedia studiesPsychologySocial scienceEpistemologyPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a long graduated doctoral student, this text would have been a considerable and useful tool to begin understanding, learning and consequently, employing the best qualitative and/or quantitative method(s) for inquiry and 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.017

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 head0.850
GPT teacher head0.700
Teacher spread0.150 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Action ResearchSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207