MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389161391 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4617116

Using Large Language Models to Support Thematic Analysis in Empirical Legal Studies

2023· article· en· W4389161391 on OpenAlexaff
Jakub Drápal, Hannes Westermann, Jaromír Šavelka

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisThematic mapCoding (social sciences)Computer scienceQualitative analysisEmpirical researchQuality (philosophy)Qualitative researchData scienceNatural language processingSociologyEpistemologySocial scienceGeographyCartography

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.185
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.185
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.014
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207