MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800827494 · doi:10.1177/2050157918764215

Mobile methods: Explorations, innovations, and reflections

2018· article· en· W2800827494 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

VenueMobile Media & Communication · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Computer scienceField (mathematics)Data scienceMobile deviceInternet privacyWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this introduction, we define mobile methods as the means by which mobile communication technology is used to study the social world. We identify and describe three themes of mobile methods. First, they are field-based research, which enables the researcher to go into the world of their participants, enhancing ecological validity. Second, mobile methods engage in controlled complexity regarding the data they collect. Often complex and very large datasets are created through mobile methods and researchers must thoughtfully decide how best to analyze such data. Third, these methods raise important ethical considerations. Researchers employing mobile methods may collect a variety of personal or sensitive information and must be vigilant regarding informed consent and data management procedures. Lastly, we summarize the seven articles in this Special Issue.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.354 · 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