MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213453208 · doi:10.1177/1525822x211070463

Combining Conceptual Frameworks on Maternal Health in Indigenous Communities—Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping Using Participant and Operator-independent Weighting

2022· article· en· W4213453208 on OpenAlexafffund
Iván Sarmiento, Anne Cockcroft, Anna Dion, Sergio Paredes‐Solís, Abraham De Jesús-García, David Melendez, Anne Marie Chomat, Germán Darío Hernández Zuluaga, Alba Meneses-Rentería, Neil Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueField Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFundación CeiBAMcGill University
KeywordsWeightingConceptualizationOperator (biology)Fuzzy cognitive mapFuzzy logicComputer scienceCognitionCognitive mapKnowledge managementIndigenousManagement scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyCognitive psychologyFuzzy setFuzzy classificationEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recurring issue in intercultural research is whose knowledge informs conceptualization and design of projects or interventions. Fuzzy cognitive mapping uses arrows and weights to represent stakeholder knowledge on causal relationships and can generate composite theories to inform research and action. Cognitive mapping is accessible across different cultures, but participant weighting is not always straightforward. We describe a procedure to combine and condense maps from different stakeholders and an alternative operator-independent weighting procedure adapted from Harris’s discourse 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.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueField MethodsSame topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207