MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1844775423 · doi:10.7202/1032265ar

Références sur l’analyse qualitative

2015· article· fr· W1844775423 on OpenAlexaffvenue
François Guillemette, Marie-Josée Berthiaume

Bibliographic record

VenueApproches inductives Travail intellectuel et construction des connaissances · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the huge increase in the number of qualitative research studies conducted, using concept maps as a methodological research strategy has received little attention in recent literature.This paper will discuss the connections between qualitative research and concept maps.Additionally, four strategies for incorporating concept maps in qualitative research will be presented along with sample maps for each strategy.Finally, advantages and disadvantages of using concept maps in qualitative research will be discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.013

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 head0.489
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.005 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApproches inductives Travail intellectuel et construction des connaissancesSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207