Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39495739›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Data science and automation in the process of theorizing: Machine learning's power of induction in the co-duction cycle.

Daan Kolkman, Gwendolyn K Lee, Arjen van Witteloostuijn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daan KolkmanJheronimus Academy of Data Science, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9836-0212
Gwendolyn K LeeUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4276-7982
Arjen van WitteloostuijnVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent calls to take up data science either revolve around the superior predictive performance associated with machine learning or the potential of data science techniques for exploratory data analysis. Many believe that these strengths come at the cost of explanatory insights, which form the basis for theorization. In this paper, we show that this trade-off is false. When used as a part of a full research process, including inductive, deductive and abductive steps, machine learning can offer explanatory insights and provide a solid basis for theorization. We present a systematic five-step theory-building and theory-testing cycle that consists of: 1. Element identification (reduction); 2. Exploratory analysis (induction); 3. Hypothesis development (retroduction); 4. Hypothesis testing (deduction); and 5. Theorization (abduction). We demonstrate the usefulness of this approach, which we refer to as co-duction, in a vignette where we study firm growth with real-world observational data.

Indexed as

Data ScienceMachine LearningAutomationHumansModels, Theoretical

Identifiers

PMID39495739
PMCPMC11534228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.