MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4247557841 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/3qzmq

Making a case: reflections on the reader-text relation and the use of single and multiple empirical cases and generalization in sociological research

2017· preprint· en· W4247557841 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne Gaudet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityRelation (database)EpistemologySociologyGeneralizationAccountabilityDisciplineEmpirical researchSocial sciencePolitical scienceComputer sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three encounters involving the case study approach during my doctoral research journey in sociology have spurred me to write this reflexive commentary on case studies. What I briefly explore here is how disciplinary-specific perspectives from readers engaged in reader-text relations appear to have entered into conflict with the relation of accountability I hold as an author with my texts and their underlying theoretical and empirical underpinnings. I first present an overview of the three encounters and then propose a short reflexive analysis for each.

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)0.110
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.227
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1100.227
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0300.140
Scholarly communication0.0350.055
Open science0.0090.019
Research integrity0.0210.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.626
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManagement and Organizational Studies→French-language works237,207→