MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561535446 · doi:10.22456/2236-3254.68331

FICÇÃO, DIÁRIO DE CAMPO E PESQUISA-CRIAÇÃO

2016· article· pt· W2561535446 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCena · 2016
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural, Media, and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Instrumento de coleta de dados, o diário de campo é amplamente recomendado no campo das ciências sociais, mas também cada vez mais indicado na pesquisa-criação. Supõe-se que esse instrumento metodológico contribua para a realização de uma pesquisa que atenda a certos critérios de cientificidade (Savoie-Zajc, 2003, Mucchielli, 1996). No entanto, alguns pesquisadores apontam dificuldades para se ater à análise e interpretação dos dados (Baribeau, 2005). Sem questionar a utilidade do diário de campo em pesquisa-criação, propõe-se uma concepção ampliada de diário de campo, que se estenda para a ficção.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.201 · 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