MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209978909

NURP 522 (1.5 units) - Research: Human Experience and Professional Practice

2010· article· en· W3209978909 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityVariety (cybernetics)Qualitative researchProcess (computing)Data collectionInterpretation (philosophy)Engineering ethicsComputer scienceManagement sciencePsychologySociologyEpistemologySocial scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research methods represent a way of knowing. Rather than a variety of techniques, qualitative methods represent a way of seeing the world. This course will provide graduate students the opportunity to have first-hand experience with conducting qualitative research. Students will define a research problem, gather background information, begin to develop a conceptual framework for their study and consider questions of access, ethics, the role of the researcher, credibility, interpretation, and other practical matters related to conducting research. Students will learn to identify how theoretical frames they are using influence every step of the research process. Students will complete a minimum of 4 hours of data collection including interviews and participant observation. They will also engage in the basic steps of data analysis.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.295 · 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