MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548287456 · doi:10.1075/btl.99.05rus

Designing a Research Project

2011· book-chapter· en· W2548287456 on OpenAlexaff
Debra Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueBenjamins translation library · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsScholarshipSoundnessResearch methodologyManagement scienceSociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning a research project can be both daunting and exciting for all researchers, whether experienced or novice. This chapter highlights the crucial stage of creating a research project from a well-developed research question and appropriate methodology that best addresses the question. This beginning stage has a significant impact on the overall study, including the soundness of the results. This chapter explores strategies for conceiving of, and designing, a research project that can both be achievable and contribute to scholarship. This chapter draws on examples from two of the author’s own studies of interpreting in educational and legal settings, to more closely examine the many considerations required for an effective research project.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.480
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.014 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBenjamins translation librarySame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207