MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220912151 · doi:10.46697/001c.33157

Agenda for Practice-Oriented Research: From Relevance versus Rigor to Relevance with Rigor

2022· article· en· W4220912151 on OpenAlexaff
Lilac Nachum, Karl P. Sauvant, Ari Van Assche

Bibliographic record

VenueAIB Insights · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)RigourEngineering ethicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyEpistemologyEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite continuous recognition of the need for research that matters for practice, most of our research makes negligible impact on practice. We suggest a need to change the way we perceive practical impact and outline a definition of what research that matters for practice is. We develop an agenda for conducting research that meets our definition, assigning explicit roles for the academic scholars that produce research and the institutional environment that oversees their research, referring to academic institutions, journals, and academic associations. We call for scholars to change the way they view academic research and its role in society.

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)0.787
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.801
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7870.801
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.005
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0140.130
Scholarly communication0.0700.079
Open science0.0140.036
Research integrity0.0400.051
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.466
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.092 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIB InsightsSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207