MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954578094 · doi:10.22215/timreview/1248

The Status and Future of Action Research: An Interview with Professor David Coghlan

2019· article· en· W2954578094 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
David Coghlan

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology Innovation Management Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsAction (physics)Engineering ethicsAction researchEnvironmental ethicsManagementSociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceEngineeringPhilosophyPedagogyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction by Erik LindhultThe recently published special issues on action research in the TIM Review (April 2019 and May 2019) are an indicator of the viability and fruitfulness of expanding this type of approach for research and practical development in the technology and innovation management area.To further clarify the contemporary status as well as opportunities and

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0170.023
Scholarly communication0.0150.022
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0170.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.648
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.013 · 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 designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology Innovation Management ReviewSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207