MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563991011 · doi:10.6000/2371-1647.2016.02.10

A Scheme for the Study of Discussions in the Social Media

2016· article· en· W2563991011 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roel Popping

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Management Sciences & Information Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicE-Learning and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheme (mathematics)Context (archaeology)Event (particle physics)Social mediaWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In case one wants to study discussions in the social media one needs a template for doing this. The discussions can range from comments on some event to developing a deliberative democracy. This template, or scoring system, should give insight in developments in the substance of the discussion, but it should also allow considering the development of the structure of the discussion. In this text a template is proposed that covers both questions. The information that is collected by using the template might be useful in the context of (new) policy making; it can also be used to study opinions.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueJournal of Advances in Management Sciences & Information SystemsSame topicE-Learning and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207