MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243356204 · doi:10.20935/al2170

The Complementary Role of Focus Group Research in Political Science

2021· article· en· W4243356204 on OpenAlexaff
Alfred Oduro

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademia Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadow (psychology)IgnorancePoliticsSociologyFocus (optics)EpistemologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawPsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ISSN: 2153-6767 Inside: Letter from the President Jason Seawright Letter from the Editor Jennifer Cyr Original article: Disrupted Fieldwork: Navigating Innovation, Redesign, and Ethics during an Ongoing Pandemic Authors: Lauren M. MacLean, Nabila Rahman, Robin L. Turner, and Jack Corbett Original article: Shadow Cases in Comparative Research Author: Hillel Soifer Symposium: Authors meet Critics—Veil of ignorance Process Tracing

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)0.441
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.448
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4410.448
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0230.013
Science and technology studies0.0110.057
Scholarly communication0.0260.038
Open science0.0050.035
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.005

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademia LettersSame topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207