MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619174683 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56129-5_13

Some Thoughts on Gathering Response Processes Validity Evidence in the Context of Online Measurement and the Digital Revolution

2017· book-chapter· en· W2619174683 on OpenAlexaff
Lara B. Russell, Anita M. Hubley

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial indicators research series · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalProvidence Health CareCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentConstruct (python library)Context (archaeology)Construct validityThe InternetData sciencePsychologyData collectionTest (biology)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceSociologyPsychometricsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.216
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.453
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2160.453
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0080.042
Scholarly communication0.0210.034
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0110.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.614
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.104 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSocial indicators research seriesSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207