MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1842639707 · doi:10.17169/fqs-16.2.2337

Review Essay: Guidance in the World of Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) Programs

2015· article· en· W1842639707 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

VenueForum: Qualitative Social Research (Freie Universität Berlin) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftwareManagement scienceData scienceSoftware engineeringEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review discusses Christina SILVER and Ann LEWINS' book, "Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide" (2nd ed.). This book is an impressive undertaking, with online supplemental material in the form of three data sets consisting of many different types of data, detailed instructions for seven CAQDAS (Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software) programs, and full-color reproductions of illustrations from the book. The 14 chapters in the book cover a wide range of analysis issues when working with software programs, and the authors encourage critical use of such tools. Readers will benefit from engaging with the online supplemental tools. URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1502223

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.665
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.016 · 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