MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320719142 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.19.1.p014

Comment utiliser le programme d'analyse sémantique Sémato

2023· article· fr· W4320719142 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marissa Trudel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le logiciel Sémato développé par Pierre Plante à l'Université du Québec à Montréal permet de compléter des analyses sémantiques avec de très larges données textuelles. Cet article a comme but d'être un guide pour faciliter l'utilisation du logiciel par de futurs chercheurs. Des instructions étape par étape sont fournies pour (1) la préparation du texte avant l'analyse; (2) l'ouverture d'un nouveau projet; (3) l'identification, la modification et l'élimination des thèmes; et (4) certaines analyses. Ces explications sont supportées par des figures d'une analyse précédente qui illustrent quelles étapes suivre sur le logiciel.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quantitative Methods for PsychologySame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207