MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613655739 · doi:10.11575/prism/31646

Research assistant training manual: Focus group

2017· article· en· W2613655739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Elaine Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Focus (optics)Focus groupGroup (periodic table)Computer scienceGeographyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This manual is a practical training guide for graduate and undergraduate research assistants (RAs) working in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary. The purpose of this manual is to train RAs on how to plan and conduct focus groups for qualitative research in the field of education.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3050.164

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207