MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962693645 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2019.4027

A Practical Resource for the Social Sciences: A Book Review of Bruce Friedman’s The Research Toolkit - Problem Solving Processes for the Social Sciences

2019· review· en· W2962693645 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Faubert

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Resource (disambiguation)Reading (process)SociologyQualitative researchSocial researchProcess (computing)Engineering ethicsComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bruce D. Friedman provides an invaluable resource for social science researchers and practitioners to add to their “toolkit.” This book provides practical and straightforward guidance for understanding and conducting qualitative and quantitative research. As a social science researcher, sessional instructor, and doctoral student, reading this book answered important questions I had regarding the research process and implications of social science research. This review will discuss the primary tenets of the book as well as the relevance of this toolkit for student-researchers.

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 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)0.265
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2650.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0070.001
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 head0.871
GPT teacher head0.721
Teacher spread0.150 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207