MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501391620 · doi:10.1177/160940690700600105

Questions Arising about Emergence, Data Collection, and Its Interaction with Analysis in a Grounded Theory Study

2007· article· en· W1501391620 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

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryCLARITYTransparency (behavior)Data collectionComputer scienceData scienceQualitative analysisQualitative researchQualitative propertyData analysisManagement scienceSociologyData miningSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a strong call for increased clarity and transparency of method in qualitative research. Although qualitative data analysis has been detailed, data management has not been made as transparent in the literature. How do data collection and analysis interact in practical terms? What constitutes sufficient data? And can research be both planful and emergent? In this paper, the author highlights several methodological strategies for addressing data management challenges in a grounded theory study of preservice mathematics teachers.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.690
GPT teacher head0.742
Teacher spread0.052 · 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