MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2586715374

15th Qualitative Methods Conference, 3-5 May 2016, Glasgow, United Kingdom

2016· article· en· W2586715374 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Avivit M. Cherrington

Notice bibliographique

RevueEducational Research for Social Change · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNarrativeQualitative researchIndigenousSociologyTheme (computing)Presentation (obstetrics)Media studiesPedagogySocial scienceMedicineArt
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Qualitative Methods Conference, hosted annually by International Institute for Qualitative Methodology (IIQM), was a 3-day event focusing on qualitative research across disciplines. The theme of conference, Collaboration Considered: Complexities and Possibilities Across Communities and Cultures, invited presentations and discussions around challenges and benefits of conducting research collaborativeiy-as well as providing a platform for new perspectives on research approaches to emerge across disciplinary, geographical, and cultural boundaries. According to Sarah Stahlke, conference chair, conference programme sought to reflect the diversity of approaches being used across disciplines and experiences of a vast array of researchers. The picturesque city of Glasgow, Scotland, flaunted cold but uncharacteristically dry weather providing a perfect venue for a conference that sought to generate dialogue on complexities and possibilities.The opening keynote address by Jean Clandinin, professor and founding director of Centre for Research for Teacher Education and Development at University of Alberta, titled Relational Commitments of Narrative Inquirers stimulated thinking about relational ethics in qualitative research. Her presentation took audience on an autobiographical narrative journey reflecting on her lengthy engagement with a young girl from an impoverished Indigenous community. As her story unfolded, we began to learn about shifting positioning-and repositioning-of researcher and young girl in relation to each other and to their emerging relationship over months and years of engagement. This was a thought-provoking start to conference, reminding delegates that research is a relational process of becoming for both researcher and participant, and encouraging fellow researchers to be mindful of how their engagements can become part of participants' lives.The second keynote address was presented on final day of conference by Penny Tinkler, a senior lecturer in sociology at University of Manchester, who has written extensively on photomethods and visual culture. Her presentation, Building Bridges and Bridging Time: Photo-Elicitation as Collaborative Practice, spoke to issues of both implicit and explicit collaboration, highlighting important difference between participation and collaboration. She further argued that collaborative microprocesses, when designed into research engagement, help build bridges with participants and are key to success of photo-elicitation interviews. What stood out was her discussion that carefully planning and thinking about such microprocesses can contribute towards rigour and quality in visual research.Three micro keynote addresses had been selected from all submitted abstracts for their innovative or intriguing contribution, and were presented in a plenary format. Victoria Palmer, Senior Research Fellow at University of Melbourne, spoke about an interdisciplinary, qualitative approach informed by theories of ethics and narrative examining primary health care, severe mental illness, and recovery. She was followed by Suzanne Goopy, a cultural and visual anthropologist and professor of community health at University of Calgary, speaking about using cultural probes in focus groups to enable empathie, engaging, and emancipatory research. The final speaker, Louela Manankil-Rankin from Nipissing University, rounded up panel by outlining an innovative process of data analysis in narrative inquiry.The conference did not feature set thematic tracks but each day delegates could move between seven concurrent sessions representing a variety of topics. The range of morning and afternoon sessions featured topics such as:* Specialised methodologies (e.g., case studies, action research, longitudinal research, interpretive phenomenology, ethnographic approaches)* Research skills (e. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,047
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,805
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,653

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0470,044
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,007
Communication savante0,0100,004
Science ouverte0,0030,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1950,038

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,975
Tête enseignante GPT0,815
Écart entre enseignants0,160 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEducational Research for Social ChangeMême sujetParticipatory Visual Research MethodsTravaux en français237 207