MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017338810 · doi:10.30834/kjp.33.1.2020.188

How to choose research topic?

2020· article· en· W3017338810 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Kumar Praharaj, Shahul Ameen

Bibliographic record

VenueKerala Journal of Psychiatry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most important aspects of planning research is choosing the research topic. Without a good research question, the outcome of any research is questionable and will not have any impact whatsoever. It is fairly common practice to hurriedly prepare a protocol and finish a study to meet the criteria for academic promotions. Similarly, to meet the grant application deadlines, not uncommonly, study ideas are generated within very brief periods. It often results in a poorly conceived research question. The time spent on choosing the research topic and generating appropriate questions will pay a rich dividend. An investment of time at this point in the research process offsets the potential time and resources wasted in pursuing an inappropriate question, or one that has been comprehensively addressed already.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKerala Journal of PsychiatrySame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207