MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253510417 · doi:10.18438/b89p5b

Research Methods: Interviews

2012· article· en· W4253510417 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Virginia Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLibrary scienceData scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No abstract.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.037

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 head0.428
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207