Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not easy to formulate a suitable research question. Some research as too simple and other are too complex. The Socratic Dialogue may be used as a technique for facilitating conversation and reflection as a means of developing suitable research questions. The essence of this approach is that the discussants share experiences and in so doing they not only learn from each other but also identify interesting areas for research. The technique is affected through a structured conversation or discourse which is used to explore an agreed issue. The Socratic Dialogue 'conversation' consists of three steps or stages and is suitable for six to eight participants who may be colleagues or knowledge informants. It also requires a competent facilitator who can guide the group through its conversation and reflection. Socratic Dialogues will not always lead to a consensus but even when it doesn't it can be useful to researcher seeking useful research questions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.097 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".