MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175246019 · doi:10.18778/2450-4491.12.18

Recenzja: Robert Kreitz, Ingried Miethe, Anja Tervooren (red.), Theorien in der qualitativen Bildungsforschung – Qualitative Bildungsforschung als Theoriegenerierung, Opladen Berlin Toronto 2016, Verlag Barbara Budrich, ss. 256

2021· article· pl· W3175246019 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Danuta Urbaniak-Zając

Bibliographic record

VenueNauki o Wychowaniu Studia Interdyscyplinarne · 2021
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tekst jest recenzją monografii pod redakcją Roberta Kreitza, Ingried Miethe, Anji Tervooren, wydanej przez Kommision für qualitative Bildungs- und Biographieforschung Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaf. 12 artykułów zamieszczonych w książce dotyczy: 1) empirycznych konsekwencji teoretycznych stanowisk przyjmowanych przez badaczy; 2) teoretycznych innowacji w badaniach jakościowych; 3) innowacji w metodyce badań będących konsekwencją teoretycznych orientacji.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.032

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.413 · 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.

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

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNauki o Wychowaniu Studia InterdyscyplinarneSame topicQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207