MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

To Engage Research Critically : A Review of Kerry Howell ’s The Philosophy of Methodology

2015· review· en· W795765405 on OpenAlexaff
Allyson Larkin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDutch Social and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologySociologyDeskFeminismPhilosophy of scienceQualitative researchSocial researchSocial sciencePhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The turn to philosophical grounding in qualitative research demands a depth of historical and conceptual knowledge that many trained in the social sciences may lack. Kerry Howell ’ s A Philosophy of Methodology is a concise and useful guide to the key developments in Western epistemology then linking philosophical thought to social theory and paradigm of inquiry. For the novice researcher or graduate student, this book is an excellent desk reference, however there are several omissions, including feminism, which renders it a less - than - complete guide to the role of epistemology in social science inquiry.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.888
GPT teacher head0.731
Teacher spread0.157 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicDutch Social and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207