MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297140955 · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107081

A systematic literature review of the Design Critique method

2022· article· en· W4297140955 on OpenAlexaff
Lorans Alabood, Zahra Aminolroaya, Dianna Yim, Omar Addam, Frank Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation and Software Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityComputer scienceThematic analysisProcess (computing)Agile software developmentContext (archaeology)Coding (social sciences)Systematic reviewData scienceData collectionDomain (mathematical analysis)Management scienceSoftware engineeringQualitative researchHuman–computer interactionEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.190
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.354
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1900.354
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.014
Bibliometrics0.0570.024
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInformation and Software TechnologySame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207