MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1051780262 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2237

Assessing the FACTS: A Mnemonic for Teaching and Learning the Rapid Assessment of Rigor in Qualitative Research Studies

2015· article· en· W1051780262 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed El Hussein, Sonya L. Jakubec, Joseph Osuji

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMnemonicQualitative researchCritical appraisalRigourPsychologyPedagogyEducational researchReading (process)Mathematics educationEngineering ethicsSociologyEpistemologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching and learning research appraisal strategies is a challenge in undergraduate education and for practitioners alike. The appraisal of rigor in qualitative research papers is particularly complex and sophisticated work for many undergraduate research students and practitioners who want to develop their critical reading skills. The mnemonic strategy (The FACTS) explained in this paper is one pedagogical strategy for establishing a simplified approach to teaching and learning the appraisal of rigor in qualitative research. While not a comprehensive tool, the FACTS are a useful introduction to the complex challenge of qualitative research appraisal.

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 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)0.405
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4050.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.866
GPT teacher head0.790
Teacher spread0.076 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207