MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383815028 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6470

“Not your typical book about qualitative research”: A Review of Camargo-Borges and McNamee’s Design Thinking and Social Construction

2023· review· en· W4383815028 on OpenAlexaff
Sally St. George

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchSociologyPsychologySocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I provide a short though robust review of the book, Design Thinking and Social Construction, to make sure you do not miss an opportunity to ignite and infuse meaningful new energy into designing your research.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.737
GPT teacher head0.689
Teacher spread0.048 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207