MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407633314 · doi:10.29333/ajqr/15880

Is Anecdotal Evidence Science?

2025· article· en· W4407633314 on OpenAlexaff
A. F. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Qualitative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrobiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is asked how, if at all, can anecdotal evidence help us understand human thinking and behavior? First, the early views about anecdotal evidence are charted. Second, specific ways anecdotal evidence is used or could be, in conjunction with quantitative studies, independently, or for fields that require subjective self-understanding, running the gamut from economics to teaching, to medicine, to literature, are delved into. Finally, the ways in which anecdotal evidence can be used in scientific inquiry are summarized.

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)0.178
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.488
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1780.488
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.047
Scholarly communication0.0260.045
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.438
GPT teacher head0.686
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Qualitative ResearchSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207