MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154228214 · doi:10.7202/1076352ar

Quelques principes pour une rédaction de qualité en recherche qualitative

2021· article· fr· W3154228214 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chantal Royer, Frédéric Deschenaux, Colette Baribeau

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches qualitatives · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyRedactionPolitical scienceTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quelques principes pour une rédaction de qualité en recherche qualitative. Un article de la revue Recherches qualitatives (Volume 40, numéro 1, printemps 2021, p. 1-176) diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

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)0.300
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.344
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3000.344
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.051
Scholarly communication0.0170.022
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0070.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.555
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.027 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches qualitativesSame topicData Analysis and ArchivingFrench-language works237,207