MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895935703 · doi:10.1177/1558689818804060

Social Network Analysis: An Example of Fusion Between Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

2018· article· en· W2895935703 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

VenueJournal of Mixed Methods Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentralityComputer scienceSocial network analysisVisualizationQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Data scienceSubjectivityQualitative analysisQualitative propertySelection (genetic algorithm)Qualitative researchData visualizationSocial network (sociolinguistics)Data miningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSociologyEpistemologyMathematicsSocial scienceStatisticsWorld Wide WebSocial media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quantitative approach to social network analysis involves the application of mathematical and statistical techniques and graphical presentation of results. Nonetheless—as with all sciences—subjectivity is an integral aspect of network analysis, manifested in the selection of measures to describe connection patterns and actors’ positions (e.g., choosing a centrality indicator), in the visualization of social structure in graphs, and in translating numbers into words (telling the story). Here, we use network research as an example to illustrate how quantitative and qualitative approaches, techniques, and data are mixed along a continuum of fusion between quantitative and qualitative realms.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.454
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.189 · 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