MétaCan
Menu
Cohort builder

4,299,418 works, Canadian by any of four routes.

Every filter state is a URL; the URL is the query; the query is citable via /q/⟨hash⟩. The page, the API and the export parse the same parameters.

The current cohort, streamed from the database: every work column, the machine labels, the provisional scores, and the per-row validation status. Exports are capped at 100,000 rows. Mints a permanent /q/ link for this exact query. The same filters always produce the same link, whoever asks.

Search term
Author
Year range
Sort
Language
Type
Field
Venue
Topic
Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Retraction
Abstract
Evidence source
Study design
Label agreement
Label status

Direct Codex and Gemma labels are unvalidated and sparse. Distilled predictions cover the full frame and are also unvalidated. Choose the evidence source explicitly; absence of a direct label is never a negative label.

affaffiliation
fundfunder
venuejournal
aboutaboutness

The four routes compose: require the funder route and exclude affiliation to get the funder-only stratum no affiliation-based frame ever sees.

310 results · 1 filter active ·
Results by year
20002025
Publication date
Categories
Machine labels · sparse coverage
Evidence
Language
Type
Citations
An unlabeled work is unknown, not a negative. Label coverage is reported on every query.
310 works in the cohort · of 4,299,418page 1 of 7

Labels cover 9 of 310 works in this cohort. The rest are unlabeled, which is not a negative label: the label table is sparse today and grows as labeling rounds land.

Distilled predictions cover 310 of 310 works in this cohort. Predictions are machine_predicted_unvalidated. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work (title-only); the Codex side is a distilled, calibrated classifier. Candidate is the union; consensus is the intersection.

affunlabeled
The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research
Nancy Carter, Denise Bryant‐Lukosius, Alba DiCenso, Jennifer Blythe, Alan J. Neville
2014· article· en· Oncology nursing forum· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
3,763
citations
affunlabeled
Netnography
Robert V. Kozinets
2015· other· en· The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · insufficient_payloadconsensus · none
584
citations
affunlabeled
What About Focus Group Interaction Data?
Wendy Duggleby
2005· article· en· Qualitative Health Research· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
373
citations
afffundunlabeled
Zoom Interviews: Benefits and Concessions
John L. Oliffe, Mary T. Kelly, Gabriela Gonzalez Montaner, Wellam F. Yu Ko
2021· article· en· International Journal of Qualitative Methods· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
338
citations
affunlabeled
Learning in focus groups
Victoria Wibeck, Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren, Gunilla Öberg
2007· article· en· Qualitative Research· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
290
citations
afffundno abstractunlabeled
Focus group research and “the patient's view”
Pascale Lehoux, Blake Poland, Geneviève Daudelin
2006· article· en· Social Science & Medicine· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
277
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Conducting a Research Interview
Amanda Bolderston
2012· article· en· Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
275
citations
affgemma · research_integritygpt · metaresearch+research_integritymodels split
Ethical Dilemmas in Research on Internet Communities
Sarah Flicker, Dave Haans, Harvey A. Skinner
2004· article· en· Qualitative Health Research· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearch+research_integrityconsensus · metaresearch
158
citations
aboutno affunlabeled
Focusing on the Focus Group
Jenny Cameron
2005· book-chapter· en· Griffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · none
137
citations
affunlabeled
How Informed Is Online Informed Consent?
Connie K. Varnhagen, Matthew M. Gushta, Jason Daniels, Tara C. Peters, Neil Parmar, Danielle M. Law +3 more
2005· article· en· Ethics & Behavior· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
113
citations
afffundunlabeled
Feminist research in online spaces
Oona Morrow, Roberta Hawkins, Leslie Kern
2014· article· en· Gender Place & Culture· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · stsconsensus · none
97
citations
affunlabeled
Ethical Issues in Qualitative E-Learning Research
Heather Kanuka, Terry Anderson
2007· article· en· International Journal of Qualitative Methods· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
66
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Designing for Diffusion of a Biomedical Intervention
James W. Dearing, Dawn K. Smith, R. Sam Larson, Carole A. Estabrooks
2012· review· en· American Journal of Preventive Medicine· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
46
citations

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About