MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416881945 · doi:10.1080/08982112.2025.2592021

Question, plan, data, Analysis, and Conclusion (QPDAC): A tutorial

2025· article· en· W4416881945 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan H. Steiner, Robert J. MacKay

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Keywordsnot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review the five-step process—Question, Plan, Data Analysis, and Conclusion (QPDAC)—to assist in conducting and critiquing empirical investigations. We provide checklists of questions for each step. It is important to recognize that QPDAC is not a variation reduction framework, such as Six Sigma or Statistical Engineering. Instead, it is a tool to maximize the benefits of an empirical investigation. Using two detailed examples, we illustrate the application and advantages of QPDAC.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.033

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality EngineeringSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207