MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931727209 · doi:10.5683/sp3/yrkhwq

Codebook for thematic analysis of conflict in virtual communication of hybrid design teams

2023· dataset· en· W6931727209 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRare-earth and actinide compounds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCodebookCapstoneThematic analysisThematic mapCollaborative designAgile software development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student design teams use Enterprise Communication Platforms (e.g. slack) to communicate virtually during their capstone design projects. 6,673 messages in design-related (as opposed to administrative or social) channels (dedicated spaces for conversations related to a topic) from two randomly selected capstone design teams from 2016-2021 at a large North American University were coded for instances of conflict. The causes, topics, and outcomes of conflict were thematically analyzed using the codebook provided.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.011

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 venueBorealisSame topicRare-earth and actinide compoundsFrench-language works237,207