MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1026985620 · doi:10.9771/ccrh.v12i30.18712

PARA UMA LEITURA SIMULTÂNEA DO QUALITATIVO E DO QUANTITATIVO: O EXEMPLO DE "CONTAR SUA VIDA"

2006· article· pt· W1026985620 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCaderno CRH · 2006
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Public Policy
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)HumanitiesQualitative researchSociologyReading (process)EpistemologyPhilosophyLinguisticsSocial scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.334 · 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