MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W272747895 · doi:10.1353/ils.2014.0016

Information Behaviour Research: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? / La recherche en comportement informationnel : D’où nous venons, vers quoi nous nous dirigeons?

2014· article· fr· W272747895 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heidi Julien, Michael J. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Information and Library Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNousField (mathematics)HumanitiesComputer scienceMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quantitative content analysis of recently published research in information behaviour is compared with previous analyses to create a 30-year profile of work in the field.Variables of particular interest include research methods employed, user groups studied, relative interdisciplinarity, theoretical frameworks applied, attention to affect, and attention to systems design.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0150.024
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations42
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Information and Library ScienceSame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207