MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990909818 · doi:10.1017/s1049096519001732

Analysis of Text-Analysis Syllabi: Building a Text-Analysis Syllabus Using Scaling

2019· article· en· W2990909818 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePS Political Science & Politics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsSyllabusVariety (cybernetics)Field (mathematics)Computer scienceRank (graph theory)Mathematics educationArtificial intelligencePsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In the last decade, text-analytic methods have become a fundamental element of a political researcher’s toolkit. Today, text analysis is taught in most major universities; many have entire courses dedicated to the topic. This article offers a systematic review of 45 syllabi of text-analysis courses around the world. From these syllabi, we extracted data that allowed us to rank canonical sources and discuss the variety of software used in teaching. Furthermore, we argue that our empirical method for building a text-analysis syllabus could easily be extended to syllabi for other courses. For instance, scholars can use our technique to introduce their graduate students to the field of systematic reviews while improving the quality of their syllabi.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.041
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.375 · 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