MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405013031 · doi:10.1177/15586898241305657

Media Review: Philosophical Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Dialogues between Researchers and Philosophers ShanY. (Ed.) (2024). Philosophical Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Dialogues between Researchers and Philosophers. Routledge.

2024· article· en· W4405013031 on OpenAlexaff
Marcy Antonio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mixed Methods Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultimethodologyEpistemologySociologyEngineering ethicsManagement scienceSocial sciencePhilosophyEngineering

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)0.245
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.276
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2450.276
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0200.016
Science and technology studies0.0070.036
Scholarly communication0.0250.023
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0130.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.833
GPT teacher head0.692
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mixed Methods ResearchSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207