MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412234974

Reality Check – Conducting Real World Studies

2023· article· en· W4412234974 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bruce Ferwerda, Allan Hanbury, Bart P. Knijnenburg, Birger Larsen, Lien Michiels, Andrea Papenmeier, Alan Said, Philipp Schaer, Martijn C. Willemsen

Bibliographic record

VenueVBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversität LeipzigUniversität Duisburg-EssenUniversiteit AntwerpenLeibniz-GemeinschaftBauhaus-Universität WeimarNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyNational Institute of InformaticsGöteborgs UniversitetUniversität RegensburgUniversity of WaterlooFriedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaUniversitat de ValènciaUniversità degli Studi di PadovaTechnische Universiteit EindhovenUniversiteit MaastrichtTechnische Universität WienTechnische Universiteit DelftClemson UniversityRMIT UniversityUniversiteit van AmsterdamBrandeis UniversityUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsReality checkComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)GeographyDatabaseGeologyTest (biology)Paleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information retrieval and recommender systems are deployed in real world environments. Therefore, to get a real feeling for the system, we should study their characteristics in “real world studies”. This raises the question: What does it mean for a study to be realistic? Does it mean the user has to be a real user of the system or can anyone participate in a study of the system? Does it mean the system needs to be perceived as realistic by the user? Does it mean the manipulations need to be perceived as realistic by the user?

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)0.113
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.196
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1130.196
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.491
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.043 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet)Same topicQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207