MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Baby Steps: A Book Review of Dorothy Valcarcel Craig’s Action Research Essentials

2015· review· en· W749362337 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdi Qasqas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Action (physics)Action researchPsychologyResource (disambiguation)EpistemologyEngineering ethicsSociologyPedagogyComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Action Research Essentials by Dorothy Valcarcel Craig (2009) is an excellent resource for the emerging researcher; especially doctoral students in their first year of studies. Craig is successful in providing the reader with the essentials of action research while also addressing common challenges; one baby step at a time. In this review I will first explain the process of selecting and conducting the first reading of the book followed by identifying the author’s objectives and intent. Then, I present a brief description of each chapter and note how their content relates to struggling research students' common challenges of the . I then put forth a quantitative description of one of the major strengths of the book, followed by online resources associated with each chapter.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.228
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2280.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.909
GPT teacher head0.795
Teacher spread0.115 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207