PARA UMA LEITURA SIMULTÂNEA DO QUALITATIVO E DO QUANTITATIVO: O EXEMPLO DE "CONTAR SUA VIDA"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo tem como objetivos colocar a necessidade de ultrapassar-se a oposição entre as abordagens quantitativa e qualitativa e defender a idéia de seu uso articulado sobre um mesmo campo de investigação. A pesquisa consistiu em pôr à prova as informações obtidas através de um questionário biográfico padrão (isto é, que observava as principais etapas da vida da pessoa pesquisada a partir da sua saída da família de origem), confrontando-as com aquelas fornecidas pelas historias de vida recolhidas com as mesmas pessoas. A comparação mostra que os dois métodos permitem identificar as regularidades que emergem da variedade das experiências individuais e que a qualidade das informações obtidas é menos diferente e mais complementar. A situação de pesquisa — por questionário ou entrevista — exige, por parte do pesquisado, a produção de um sentido que dá coerência a sua vida e exprime-se em uma “mensagem ” que fundamenta tanto a narrativa de vida quanto a maneira de responder ao questionário. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: História de vida, questionário biográfico, longitudinal, vida familiar e vida profissional, gênero. FOR A SIMULTANEOUS READING OF THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE: THE EXAMPLE OF “TELLING YOUR LIFE STORY”. The objective of this article is to show the need of overcoming the opposition between the quantitative and qualitative approaches and advocates the idea of their articulated uses on the same field of investigation. The research consisted of testing the obtained information by means of a standard biographic survey (namely, one that observed the main stages of life of the surveyed person after leaving the family of origin), comparing them with the information supplied by the histories of life told indirectly by other people. The comparison shows that the two methods enable the identification of the regularities emerging from the variety of the individual experiences, and that the obtained information is less different and more supplementary. The way the research was conducted – interview or questionnaire, demands from the interviewee, the result of a meaningful sense coherent to his/her life and expressed in a “message” that fundaments both the narrative of life and the way of answering the questionnaire”. KEY WORDS: History of life, biographic questionnaire, longitudinal, familiar life and professional life and gender Publicação Online do Caderno CRH: http://www.cadernocrh.ufba.br
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".